PC 02-22-05
City of Cupertino
10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308
AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Planning Commission meeting
Cupertino Community Hall
Tuesday, February 22, 2005, 6:45 p.m.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 6:45 p.m.; City Council Chambers
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 25, 2005
February 8, 2005
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
POSTPONEMENTSjREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter not
on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the
Commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not on the agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING
1.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
GP A-2004-01, EA-2004-17
City of Cupertino
Citywide
General Plan amendment to revise the General Plan
Subject: Environmental Resources
Tentative City Council date: Not scheduled
OLD BUSINESS
Planning Commission Agenda of February 22, 2005
Page-2
NEW BUSINESS
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee
Housing Commission
Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners
Economic Development Committee Meeting
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ADJOURNMENT
If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or
in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Please note that Planning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for
10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will
make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require
special assistance, please contact the city clerk's office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in
advance of the meeting.
g:Planning/ Agendas & Hearings/2-22-05agenda
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M.
JANUARY 25, 2005
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY
The Planning Commission meeting of January 25, 2005 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati.
ROLLCALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
V ice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Taghi Saadati
Gilbert Wong
Angela Chen
Lisa Giefer
Marty Miller
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Assistant Planner:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Peter Gilli
Gary Chao
Chair Saadati thanked the Commissioners and stafffor their support and hard work in the
previous year.
Election of Chairperson:
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Giefer, to nominate Com. Wong to
serve as Chairperson. (Vote: 4-0-1, Com. Wong abstain.)
Chairperson Wong chaired the remainder ofthe meeting.
Election of Vice Chairperson:
Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Saadati , to nominate Com. Miller as
Vice Chair. (Vote: 4-0-1, Com. MiUer abstain)
Environmental Review Committee Representative and Alternate:
Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to nominate Chair
Wong to serve as Environmental Planning Commission representative.
(Vote: 4-0-1, Chair Wong abstain)
Motion:
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Saadati, to nominate Vice Chair
Miller to serve as alternate for the ERC. (Vote: 4-0-1; Vice Chair Miller
abstain.
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
January 25, 2005
Housinl! Commission Representative:
Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Cben, to nominate Com. Saadati as
Housing Commission representative. (Vote: 4-0-1,
Com. Saadati abstain).
Desil!n Review Committee Chair and Member:
Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Saadati, to nominate Vice Chair
Miller to serve as Chair of the DRC, and Com. Giefer to serve as
commissioner on the DRC. (Vote: 3-0-2; Vice Chair Miller and Com. Giefer
abstain)
Economic Development Committee Representative:
Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to nominate Com.
Chen to serve as EDC representative. (Vote: 4-0-1, Com. Chen abstain)
Chair Wong:
. Acknowledged past Chair Saadati for his one year of service and said he looked forward to
working with staff.
. Welcomed new Vice Chair Miller and said he looked forward to working with Corns. Chen
and Giefer in their second year on the Planning Commission.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the January 11, 2005 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion:
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Saadati, to approve tbe January 11,
2005 Planning Commission minutes as presented.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR:
2.
Dffi-2004-06
David Perng
(Tian-Hui Temple)
7811 Orion Lane
Appeal of an approval of a Director's Minor
Modification for minor additions to an
existing church. Request postponement
to February 8, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Tentative City Council date: March I, 2005.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to postpone
Application Dffi-2004-06 to the February 8, 2005 Planning Commission
meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Deborah HilI, Cupertino resident:
. Expressed concern for children and their safety in the area of Rodrigues and Torres Avenues,
and lack of bike lanes.
. Asked if it was possible to widen the streets.
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
IanWI!}' 25,2005
· Concerned about pedestrian safety.
· Asked for patrolling in the area.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Indicated he would pass Ms. Hill's comments to the Public Works Department.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1.
GPA-2004-01
(EA-2004-17)
City of Cupertino
Citywide location
General Plan amendment to revise the General Plan.
Tentative City Council date: Not Scheduled.
Chair Wong:
· Said that the process and goals would be discussed with the Planning Commissioners.
Vice Chair MiUer:
· Said he felt it would be beneficial for the Planning Commission and community to be more
rigorous in the method of reviewing the General Plan and in preparation for that, it would be
helpful to review the goals and reach an agreement on the process to be followed.
· Submitted his suggestions for goals:
o The General Plan needs to meet the State requirements for a General Plan for the city,
including the ABAG objectives. It is important to look at key areas in town in more
depth, including areas such as Vallco, North DeAnza and the Crossroads and all the
areas that are under discussion and potentially have differing viewpoints.
o One approach is to review the objectives in each of the areas, reviewing what works
and what doesn't work, and whether or not it is appropriate to make adjustments to the
goals, use, zoning, density, and height of the setbacks.
o The next area is to review industrial and office properties in more detail, particularly
those vacant properties which are not being used or are being under-utilized, which
represents an opportunity for the city, particularly in terms of its housing
requirements. In part the housing requirements are driven by industrial space, even
though the industrial space is not occupied, hence there is an opportunity to reduce the
overall housing requirement by reducing industrial space. It is a worthwhile exercise
to look at properties particularly on the rnnges of changes in zoning, where it might be
easy to do that.
o There is general agreement in the community ITOm a goals standpoint to see more
commercial space which would hopefully be successful in generating revenue for the
city; therefore it may seem right to discuss incentives for increasing commercial space
in the city and how it can be incorporated into the General Plan moving forward.
o Another important goal is whether or not the city has the service capacities to support
the proposed development.
o It makes sense to review that after the development plan is in place and they see if the
city has the water, sewer, and the rest of the services to support the proposed
development; and if not, then go back and re-evaluate things.
o In terms of process, he suggested to agree on goals and then review the task force, the
administrative and the minority reports and where they differ, review key areas in
town and hold a meeting to summarize and make recommendations.
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
January 25, 2005
Com. Chen:
· The major difference between the two processes, is what has been done in the last meeting and
plan to continue to do in this meeting, and the process that Vice Chair Miller suggested is
already starting on C, but the desire to go back to A which is to agree on the goals, and to
review the task force results vs administrative results and also monitoring these.
· Asked what the major difference between the processes was and how much more time was
needed in terms of timelines.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Not certain of the time1ines; the major differences is to review individual properties in more
depth, particularly the ones that are in everybody's mind and under discussion.
· For example, there is an application tonight talking about doing something in the No. DeAnza
area, and there has been some discussion about whether there should be more housing or less
housing there, what makes sense, should it be just a little commercial, should there be housing
on the Apple property?
· There are a number of different issues on the table and all the issues need to be discussed and
decide what the appropriate zoning and use of that property is as part of the General Plan and
how does it fit with every other property.
· Said he would like the discussions to be in-depth than in the past.
Com. Chen:
· Asked if it was outside the framework of the Hot Topic items, or is it predicted that Hot Topics
will not cover some of the items that more time should be spent on.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Each one of the areas has its set of Hot Topics that have been identified; in the context of the
Hot Topics he suggested drilling down and taking each area individually.
· Focus on land use first and only relative to land use.
· Suggested a path to get through land use which seems to be the most complex and the most
controversial section of the General Plan.
Com. Giefer:
· Need to think about the process and whether or not enough time is provided is valid; also is the
public being given ample opportunity to provide input.
· With regard to goals for land use, although brief, they are in the General Plan draft document.
When participating on the General Plan Task Force, each subgroup also established goals they
had within their subgroup. She said it may be difficult to come up with additional goals.
· Several stakeholders who are listed are valid, but the residents are not listed as stakeholders;
she recommended that they go back to the input the General Plan task force provided.
· Consider going to a study session process similar to the Rl which was more informal where
they could do comparative analysis, which some have been doing, but have not yet had the
discussion between the administrative draft, the task force draft and the minority report, and it
would be a more casual forum for the Planning Commission to have that discussion.
· Would like to change process a little to accommodate more discussion between us and citizens
who are interested, and other stakeholders in attending those meetings similar to what was
done with the Rl.
· Said she was hesitant to establish goals independent of all the work that has been done prior to
receiving this document.
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
January 25, 2005
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said he did not intend to exclude residents, he just assumed they were part of the process
because it is advertised and they are encouraged to come.
· Concurred that the process used for the RI worked well and suggested patterning it after that.
It is a good idea to do study sessions, held in the council chambers and videotaped, so the rest
of the community can review them if they choose to do so.
· There are many goals, and perhaps it will clarify things when the task force recommendations
and differences are reviewed. Said he wanted to ensure that they remain focused and proceed
with the process as quickly as possible and to do that they should focus on reviewing the goals
and not create new ones, and be in agreement of what the objectives are.
Com. Saadati:
· Said he felt if they followed the original agenda prepared by staff they could address all of the
items brought up, and some may need to be discussed in more detail at the study session.
· Said that as the need arises, they may need to extend the meetings on specific topics or
lengthen the study session.
· Relative to focusing on specific lots, he said he felt they should focus on the area rather than
the lot, which is already planned in the General Plan, identified by different colored areas for
focus. The economic condition may change and in five years it may be completely different.
· He said one area that is hard to defme would be a balanced community; more input fTom the
community is needed, and based on that, arrive at an opinion.
Vice Chair MiUer:
· Said they were valid points; however, he was not suggesting that they go over every individual
property. The only suggestion for individual properties is where there is vacant unused
industrial land.
· Concurred in terms of looking at areas such as north DeAnza Boulevard or Vallco North and
Vallco south and not getting down to the individual properties.
· Said he did not want to over-burden staff; if they drill down further than what is done
presently, that implies that staff has to do some more work and they need to be treated fairly as
well.
Ms. Wordell and Mr. Piasecki:
· Staff was already prepared to get some of the information requested which was potential
properties that might be converted to residential uses.
· When discussing the individual Hot Topics, if there are areas and specific properties that have
characteristics that a commissioner feels should be treated special, staff needs to be informed.
Chair Wong:
· Suggest because of time constraints that the topic be moved into a study session; also looking
at the revised General Plan schedule, there should also be a land use wrap up and the other
elements wrapped up to be able to provide guidance to staff.
· It is a good compromise on No. I vs. No.2 that will extend it more, but ifthe General Plan has
to be prolonged, they will address that.
Ms. Worden presented the staff report:
· Said the discussion would include housing issues, representatives are present fTom the Housing
Commission and Public Fine Arts Commission.
· She noted that the Housing Hot Topic would not be discussed in detail as they were discussed
at both community meetings in the Fall and also at the last Planning Commission meeting.
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
January 25, 2005
· The Hot Topics document covered the economic impacts, what it would mean for some large
projects; it could be a big ticket item for some of the larger projects, but something that is
pointed out and perhaps they will point it out as well. It doesn't have to be a separate piece of
art that would cost a lot, public art can be integrated into a project, it might be things that the
project developers want to do. It is a broader way oflooking at that.
· There is the issue of whether public art should be onsite or an in-lieu fee; some of the issues
about not having it onsite are it is staff intensive to administer an in-lieu program and also you
have to find appropriate sites for public art if it is not on the project site.
· The Hot Topics document presented some options; one would say to consider it instead of
develop and adopt an ordinance, so that it would not be mandatory; also the option was
discussed relative to going back to the existing General Plan policy. Another option was to
lower the square feet for considering development approvals to 50,000 square feet which
would help to capture more projects.
Hema Kundargi, Fine Arts Commission:
· Described what public art was, and how it benefits the community.
· Explained One Percent For Art and emphasized its significance in Cupertino. She said that
public art reflects the character of a place; it is the expression of a city's innovative spirit and
establishes the visual identity of the community; and is in the form of furniture, sculptures,
murals, mosaics, sidewalk treatment, special doors, unique signage, fountains or a garden. One
percent for art can be easily absolved into development projects ifit is understood to be an
expense which benefits all who will enjoy its enhancement.
· Said she viewed Cupertino's implementation of percent for art as a commitment to help
celebrate and enhance its cultural, demographic and artistic diversity. Such a commitment
serves to stimulate both the public and private sectors to collaborate to recognize the city's
diverse cultural influences.
· The percent for art program is well established in many neighboring cities; it brings visual
identity and character to the city, and Cupertino needs to be competitive in every aspect to
attract businesses and residents. The character of the community may be intangible but it is
the city's most valuable asset; it needs and deserves both our protection and investment.
Vice Cbair MiUer:
· Asked if the Fine Arts Commission came up with detail on the approach; many cities have
programs, but all the programs are slightly different. There are differences in which types of
projects are asked to contribute and the size of the projects before they are required to
contribute.
Ms. Kundargi:
· Said that the ordinance states a preference for projects which are 50,000 square feet or more to
have the art for their projects; therefore there is more art in the city rather than 100,000 square
feet. It did not include residential projects, nor non-profit social services and rehabilitation of
historically significant buildings.
Com. Saadati:
· Asked how they arrived at 50,000 square feet, because there are some other cities that start
below that level. Perhaps the city should look at other cities and consider a lower level,
because a 30,000 square foot building is a significant size also.
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
January 25, 2005
Ms. Kundargi:
· Said they thought if they tried for very small projects, it would be difficult; but ifit is bigger
projects, it will make more sense for the art to go in place, and they see more possibility for
that to happen.
· Concurred about the lower square footage and will go back to the commission to discuss it
more detail and come back with more suggestions.
Com. Chen:
· Public arts projects do enhance the look of the city; said she appreciated the projects in place
last year.
· Asked for the commission's recommendation relative to onsite artwork or the in-lieu fee; or
should it be discussed on a case-by-case basis.
Ms. Kundargi:
· Said the developer could make the decision. They are asking that it be incorporated into
budgets, such that it is part of a project.
· They don't emphasize to have only a sculpture; it can be very. small ways, but it can make a
very distinctive appeal in the city, and that is what they are looking for.
Com. Chen:
· Asked if the Fine Arts Commission should be part of the suggestion group, and if it was
entirely up to the developers.
Ms. Kundargi:
· It is up to the developers, but the Fine Arts Commission would like to take a look and talk to
them, so we are part of the process.
Kim Smith, staff liaison to the Fine Arts Commission:
· Responded to the question, should the art be onsite or would the Fine Arts Commission
recommend acceptance of an in-lieu fee instead. She said it was the decision of the Fine Arts
Commission that an in-lieu fee is not preferable; it is better than nothing, but creates a burden
on staff.
· She said they would need to have possibly a larger percentage, since about 25% of most
percent of art projects goes to administrative overhead because of the administrative
responsibilities that go with it. It is also very time consuming and it is difficult to fmd city
owned property on which to put the sculpture, mural, or we may need to buy something; so
that also increases the cost.
· The Fine Arts Commission's recommendation was that the art be included on the site of the
project, not only because it is more cost effective, but also it will help to distribute the art
throughout the community as the projects develop, instead of having it centered on the city
owned parks.
Frances Seward, Housing Commission:
· The General Plan including the housing element is an important document that shapes the
future of the community, and changes to the document should be considered carefully.
· The goal of the Housing Commission is to promote affordable, attractive housing for all
income levels in Cupertino. The Commission also believes that economic and cultural
diversity in Cupertino is vital to providing a healthy, vibrant community.
· After reviewing the General Task Force recommendation for the General Plan and the
administrative draft of the General Plan, the Housing Commission urges the Planning
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
January 25, 2005
Commission to adopt an administrative plan especially as it pertains to the number of housing
units, the density and the job housing ratio.
· The Housing Commission also urges the Planning Commission to restore Policy 3-1 in the
Housing Element which designates goals for the number of housing units by income category.
The Housing Commission believes that it is important to provide housing for all income levels
and that stating these goals by income level is very important.
· It is also important to continue to encourage mixed use development especially when one of
the uses is housing along major thoroughfares. It encourages a pedestrian friendly
neighborhood atmosphere which is vital to Cupertino; many lower income families cannot
afford vehicles and it is important that these households have an opportunity to purchase
homes in close proximity to public transportation and commercial establishments.
· Teachers and other public service employees would benefit from the affordable housing
opportunities and it is vital that the school districts retain the teachers which make the school
district so successful.
· The Cupertino Housing Commission recommends that the Planning Commission recommend
the administrative draft of the General Plan be adopted in the following three areas: housing
density, job and housing ratios and housing unit allocations.
Chair Wong opened the meeting for public comment.
Mark Burns, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, and Silicon Valley Assoc. of Realtors:
· Relative to the General Plan, there is a report on national news that there is about $136 billion
in venture capital waiting for new startups, and IPOs. He said it would be a grave mistake to
take away commercial or industrial property at this time within the city of Cupertino and turn
it over to housing. Several projects are presently being considered.
· There are many places for medium density housing, more than 15 units per acre and these
would help the housing imbalance discussed. Said it is mown that when they get into those
densities, studies show that higher density housing in that range has a much lower impact on
the schools and the properties are also generally within the district for Cupertino High School
which probably has the most room to spare; and those things can be done rather than take
away industrial property.
· Cited the example of the Chinese Church of Christ, taking away industrial property
prematurely; they were approved for Friday night activities and Sunday morning services and
are now operating seven days a week and operating other businesses out of the premises. He
said there is not a shortage of churches and he felt a mistake was made in zoning a church in
the area where a new business could be.
· Said one percent for art on top of a project will cost a developer one percent and it is already
difficult to make a small profit. If they can't make a profit they won't come to Cupertino, or
they will use inferior designs or inferior materials. Extra surcharges will overload and kill
projects that could go through. Cupertino does not have a reputation of being the ideal city to
come to and build developments.
· Said there were other ways to enhance the fine arts in Cupertino; money has been raised for
the library, perhaps there could be other fund raisers for fine arts projects, don't hold the
developers totally responsible for providing the funds.
WiUiam Flory, Fremont Union High School District:
· Distributed a copy of a report written by the Superintendent of the school district made to the
City Council last February, ~howing what the growth rates are with the existing housing.
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
January 25,2005
· Feels that with the addition of the 2,237 dwelling units identified in the report and current
generation rate of .27 students per household, that there will be an impact of about 603
students on the district, which will consume all the available space.
· The report shows that there is an impact fee that will mitigate that impact, and he would like
more opportunity to work with staff on that because the numbers show they collect about 1/3
of what the impacts truly are to the district.
· The statutory figure now is $2.14 a square foot as the developer fee to provide interim housing
for schools, that is split between the high school district and the elementary districts in this
community resulting in about $.65 square foot coming into the high school district, about 1/3
about what the hard construction costs are.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Summarized Mr. Flory's statement; it is suitable if development proceeds along the current
path as long as the impact fees are substantial enough to offset the negative impacts to the
district.
Mr. Flory:
· Said he had not addressed the impacts of the additional teachers, additional staff, the 150
students per campus, the traffic on the road, things of that nature.
· Said there were several issues to discuss and work through; they are not uncomfortable with
the growth in the community and the good job in planning the community, but they need to
have more dialogue on what the impacts are to the schools and how it is addressed.
Vice Chair Miner:
· Asked is there was a recommendation on the best way to work with the school district to
ensure they are addressing the issues as they occur, as applications come up, and relative to
whether the schools will be negatively impacted.
Mr. Flory:
· Said he was presently creatiog a multi year capital outlay plan for the district, which looks at
growth as one of the elements.
· Also commissioning a new study to look at the generation rates for students and what is
collected as an impact fee and what should be collected; then working with the city on how to
blend the resources between the two agencies to best meet the school district's needs.
· In response to Chair Wong's question about how they arrived at collecting only one-third of
the in-lieu fees, he said that he was active on several professional levels within the state and
has an extensive background in school facilities planning. The fee was originally intended in
1987 when it was enacted to provide temporary housing or portables while the state backfilled
the hole that was being accumulated with growth with funds for new construction. It took a
long time for the state to step up to the line and be able to be in a position to address that issue.
· He said the developer fee that is charged was never intended to provide anything more than
temporary housing. In the school district's case, a portable classroom costs about $100,000 for
about 1000 square feet, $1.00 per square foot. They are collecting $.65 per square foot ITom
development; over the project, will generate about $2.3 million in developer fees and the cost
of housing for the same impact will be about $2.7 million and that is just portable housing.
· Said he was not certain they should inform the community that their answer to growth and the
impact on the schools is to place portables on the campuses. More discussion on that issue is
needed.
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
January 25, 2005
Ms. Wordell:
· Said the EIR Mr. Flory referred to was sent out to the different agencies for their comments.
· Staff will continue to try to refine them before we bring the EIR to you because the purpose of
the report is to get these comments and you will receive all the comments and the responses to
them; this is the beginning of the dialogue with the school district.
Dennis Whitaker, Cupertino resident:
· Said he understood from this evening's comments that they need to meet the ABAG objectives
and he was responding in a negative manner to the statement. He said it was his opinion that
they needed a plan and to be flexible primarily because those numbers were taken in 1999 and
2000 and possibly staff can respond. He said he heard a rumor they were revising the ABAG
numbers, and he wanted to ensure they were flexible with the requirements since they weren't
told that in the City Council meetings; but were told they could plan, but not necessarily have
to meet them. He urged the Planning Commission to be flexible since they were now being
told they need to meet those goals now.
· Said he heard the words commercial and industrial properties for overall housing requirements
and expressed concern that once you take away the properties, they are gone forever and never
come back. They are not saying don't use mixed use, but are saying, be smart and be
controlled on how you use those properties.
· Expressed concern that he felt there was a credibility problem in that there was a General Task
Force set of hearings in July, August, September and October 2003; votes were taken, there
was a forum, and votes for the most part were set in the way, they weren't even close. The
reason for that contention, the reason for possibly the initiatives, is he felt that they are
working against a system that was set in place.
· The goals of the Planning Commission and City Council should be the same goals as the
citizens have; please hear them.
Jennüer Griffin, Cupertino resident:
· Said that Cupertino will eventually reach 60,000, possibly 65,000. With the advent of the
development of the Vallco north and south properties, that is probably one of the last big
chunks ofland in Cupertino to be transposed into a future development.
· In terms of discussing what the future of the city will be in terms of commercial/industrial,
residential, you have to try to keep a good mix for the city; technology has had a down time in
the last 4 to 5 years, and they anticipate it is coming back quickly.
· Said she hoped that the technology parks in Cupertino are not going to be sacrificed this year
for other uses when there is a great need for eventual use by technology when and if it does
come back. Cupertino has a very valuable resource in its technology, Hewlett Packard has had
development here, Apple was founded in Cupertino. She said Cupertino needs to remember
its technology past and future.
· There is a good mix of residential and apartment use; a lot of people forget about rentals; one
of the things that could be used is rent control in Cupertino which would allow affordable
housing.
· She urged the Planning Commission to remember that they need to have a very diverse mix of
housing, commercial and retail in the city, but eed to look forward and make sure not to
sacrifice its technology parks at this time.
· Also need to make sure to look at the future of the size of Cupertino and plan appropriately; it
is not going to be 100,000 population; it may hit 60,000 in ten years.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Cupertino Planning Commission
11
January 25, 2005
Chair Wong:
· Said he wanted to discuss the revised General Plan schedule and appreciated staffs
suggestions and also Vice Chair Miller's suggestions.
· If additional meetings are needed, a study session can be added; it is important to have a land
use wrap up at the end of the third segment of the land use on February 8th, which will means
an extra meeting on February 14th to give a summary to the Planning Commission ITom staff
and also provide direction after this meeting.
Com. Giefer:
· Said she supported having additional meetings in study session format; and suggested
comparing the three documents referenced, with a study session dedicated to reviewing the
documents as part of clarifying what should be included in the final document recommended
to City Council.
Com. Saadati:
· Also in favor of having additional informal meetings in a location where there is room to
spread out the documents for comparison purposes.
· Also need more study sessions regarding land use before closure.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Supports holding additional meetings at a location suitable for videotaping.
· Com. Giefer's point is a good one, said he was not clear on the differences between the
alternative and the buildout numbers that the task force put together. Going over those
numbers would be helpful for everyone.
· I also think that for key areas in town that we should actually discuss those in more detail and
make sure that what we are doing there and our objectives there match the current land use
designations.
Com. Cben:
· Supports having as many study sessions necessary; and asked if they were considering a study
session above and beyond what staff already recommended.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said the first option for a revised schedule was to hold two extra, one land use meeting on
February 14th and March 14th for the remaining elements of circulation, public safety, and
environmental resources. Land use implies housing; hence it would be land use and housing
for February 14th and the remainder on March 14th.
A brief discussion ensued about a suitable time and date to hold a study session. It was suggested
to use the documents including the marked up copy, strike through copy ITom the task force, which
has the original language and the replacement language in one place, the General Plan, the task
force draft and the minority report; as well as the Hot Topics, and review section by section to
come up with language all are comfortable with, to recommend to the City Council.
Chair Wong:
· Said it was a good idea and he concurred.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Asked staff to explain the city's requirements relative to ABAG, what are those numbers and
where ITom staffs perspective should they be headed on that particular issue.
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
January 25, 2005
Mr. Piasecki:;
· Said Mr. Whitaker was correct, that the State Department of Housing Community
Development who reviews the housing element and the housing element requirements,
stipulates that the city is required to identify adequate sites for X number of units.
· The city is not in the business of building housing, other than assisting with several affordable
housing projects, they do not build market rate housing, but rely on the market place. The city
is only required to identify adequate sites and they have done that well.
· Staff encourages the Planning Commission to think of it in those terms and also think of it as
achieving community objectives such as encouraging commercial in some cases or providing
the right type of land use in the right locations; there are some mismatched designations in the
community.
· So far the General Plan is flexible in terms of allowing a mixture of uses and the market can
come in and make a suggestion about what the market thinks is currently the highest and best
use. The Planning Commission needs to think about for the long term what is the highest and
best use, and staff can help guide the Commission through that process. Some of Vice Chair
Miller's suggestions about site specific or area specific are a healthy exercise to go through,
and the study sessions will help reach that end.
Vice Chair MiUer:
· Clarified they need to identify the sites, but in identifying the sites in effect they are saying to a
property owner or developer that if they come in with a project that does housing in that
particular area, the city is obligated to go ahead and approve that project.
Mr. Piasecki:
· If it is a high quality project that meets all of the other objectives of the city, there would be a
commitment on the part of the city, because it is indicated as one of the permissible land uses.
· There is a lot of flexibility and there is an opportunity for the city to not just be as generic as in
the past, they can sculpt the land uses to meet the objectives and needs of the city and they
need to be protective of that and do well.
· He said ABAG would publish their next numbers in the near future as the current ones expire
in 2006; statewide the due dates for the updates to the housing elements vary ftom the
southern cities to the northern cities. It will likely be 2007 or 2008.
Com. Giefer:
· That was one particular point with the task force because our current ABAG numbers were
created at the top of the dot com boom and there was ill will ftom the task force that we were
having to live today with numbers that all of us knew didn't make sense because we have lost
a million jobs in the Bay Area.
Mr. Piasecki:
· It is almost an academic discussion because the numbers are inadequate in terms of meeting
the housing needs; it is irrelevant whether ABAG's numbers, they under-estimated if anything;
even with the dot com implosion we still have many more job opportunities, and some people
would like to reserve the opportunity for those jobs to backfill those vacant sites and that is
what ABAG looks at.
Com. Saadati:
· It would be ideal to have the summary of what is vacant in the city offices and how to go about
encouraging commercial development; in the past sites have been left vacant for commercial
Cuþert1no Planning Commission
13
January 25, 2005
development; is it the right decision to deny housing projects and leave the site vacant for 20
years? That practice needs to be addressed.
Chair Wong:
· Said they were discussing the housing element tonight and have the North DeAnza area,
Apple, Vallco south, Vallco north, and those numbers which were done in 2003.
· Asked staff to come back and discuss how they want to reallocate them and why, since it
makes sense that in some areas it should be denser vs. where industrial area should remain
industrial.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said those numbers are included in the new option in the Hot Topics document where they
have compared all the different options and proposed a new option trying to address some of
the task force concerns but address other concerns as well.
Discussion ensued regarding the availability of meeting room for the study sessions. Ms. Wordell
indicated that the community hall was not available on February 14th. She said she would contact
the commissioners individually to set a meeting date.
Chair Wong thanked the public, Fine Arts Commission and Housing Commission for their
participation.
3.
TM-2Q04-05, U-2004-06,
ASA-2004-09 (EA-2004-08)
Wayne Aozasa (CA Water
Service), Greenleaf Drive
Tentative Map to subdivide a .95-acre parcel into four
lots ranging from approximately 6,430 square feet to
8880 square feet, plus a remainder lot of 11,500 square
feet. Use Permit for 4 two-story single-family, two-story
residences in a planned development. Architectural and
site approval for 4 single-family, two-story residences in a
planned development.
Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
· Application is for a Tentative Map to subdivide a .951 acre parcel into 4 parcels ranging from
approximately 7,000 square feet to 8,500 square feet, plus a remaining lot of 11,500 square
feet.
· The ASA and Use Permit Applications are not being considered as part of this approval as the
applicant has decided to proceed with the Tentative Map approval first.
· The project is approvable at the Planning Commission level.
· He reviewed the site analysis, private road, California Water Service remainder parcel, tree
removal, as outlined in the staff report.
· Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Tentative Map application in
accordance with the model resolution.
Noted that the title of the resolution should be amended to read "the Planning Commission is
approving the Tentative Map application."
Vice Chair Miller:
· Noted that there were two unattractive structures on the water company land and questioned if
the streetscape would be enhanced when the view is open to the public.
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
January 25,2005
Mr. Chao:
· That is why staff is suggesting some landscaping strip along the wrought iron fence along the
private drive, to screen the use of the pump areas. The applicant will plant shrubbery and
landscaping in the first 25 feet of the property.
· There is a condition that requires the water service company to clean up their existing lot.
They are encouraged to plant more shrubbery to cover the pump station if desired by the
commission; it can be made a condition ofthe project.
· Lot 4 is actually a lot, but it is a lot to be designated as a private cuI de sac; it will be
maintained and incorporated into the CC&Rs of the project of the HOA.
Com. Giefer:
· Questioned if the pavers were ADA compliant.
· Asked what appeared to be either a capped off well or a water storage well underground.
· Questioned the contradiction in the staff report, Page 3-3 and the resolution Page 3-6 regarding
tree preservation.
· Disclosed that the developer was present when she was on the site.
Mr. Chao:
· Said the Building Department would look at the pavers when the project comes in for a permit.
Not necessary to be stipulated in the model resolution.
· Said the experts rrom California Water would address questions about the equipment.
· Relative to the language in the model resolution and the staff report about the trees, said the
intent of the conditions so that tree Nos. 7, 56-58,71 could be removed at the discretion of the
property owner in the future because they are not specimen trees. Any other trees shown on
the map to be preserved aside rrom the specific numbers are to be recorded as covenant on the
property to be maintained and preserved.
Com. Saadati:
· Asked who would maintain all the landscaping around the iron fence and the rront.
Mr. Chao:
· The HOA for the project will maintain the landscaping under the CC&Rs. Staff recommends
that the landscaping area in rront of the water company site be made part of the HOA so that
they can maintain and upkeep the area. It will be confinned with the applicant tonight.
Chair Wong:
· Relative to the building envelope 1, 2 and 3, especially No.3, asked what the size of it was;
and stated that Lot 3 looks narrow.
· Said the applicant can address that when subdividing this lot in the future as the city grows.
Will there be enough capability or capacity for a city; do they need the extra space?
Mr. Chao:
· Don't know the specific square footage of the actual buildable envelope; the lines being called
out on the site plan shows that it confonns to setback standards; applicant can address that.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Disclosed that the applicant was present on the site when he visited it.
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
January 25,2005
Wayne Aozasa, agent for tbe developer:
· Application was a 4 lot subdivision, and through working with the Planning Department
resolved it to a three lot subdivision; the 4th lot is the road which makes it a totalS lot
subdivision with the water company lot being the remainder site.
· Relative to the building envelopes, we have had some elevations and some architectural
drawings done, and the cuI de sac and the·wrap around and the Water Company dimensions
got jostled around a little, so that we wanted to get the subdivision done fIrst and then come in
with the homes after the subdivision was accomplished.
· Relative to the landscaping maintenance in the front area, the Water Company has provisions
to maintain their own site and I believe the Water Company has a lot of sites in the area that
are in the middle of residential districts and there is a provision that they maintain their own
sites and have a front yard provision or policy to maintain their properties.
Com. Giefer:
· Asked what the large concrete obj ect was in the center?
· What type of station is it, is it a pumping station or a drinking water pump.
· As part of the Homeland Security Act, asked if they were required to harden this particular
pumping station or their drinking water storage tanks. Expressed concern that additional
security measures may have to be installed in the future.
· Introduced Ron Richardson, California Water Service Company and Shawn Hefuer, California
Water Service Company:
Mr. Ron Richardson, California Water Service Company:
· Said the object was a cement foundation for a water storage and aeration tank.
· Stated that the station was a well station that pumps directly into their distribution system for
drinking water for the residents of Cupertino.
· At this time there are no specific plans to increase the security of the site. The site currently
has two locked fences.
Chair Wong:
· Asked if, expanding to this area as the city grows, did they need to expand on this particular
site.
Mr. Richardson:
· Said it was a question for the water company, but said they do not intend to expand other than
the lots they are subdividing. He said he assumed that the aquifers and the wells at which they
are drawing the water from have the capacity to do so. He said he could not assess the future
needs, but noted there were large pipes underneath there and that is the main service for the
city of Cupertino.
· He said he shared the concerns about the security systems for the water supply for the city of
Cupertino. They are attempting to enforce the non-pedestrian or non-entrance no trespassing
type of environment for the water company and the water company has a public conscience to
deliver and keep the water supply safe for the city of Cupertino.
Chair Wong:
· Expressed concern that as the city grows or the metro area grows, this will be three lots they
will lose.
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
January 25, 2005
Mr. Richardson:
· Said they had the capability if the subdivision would be approved to be able to improve or
introduce additional facilities at that site which could potentially allow them to drill an
additional well once the life span of the current well has been exceeded. They would also
potentially be able to add facilities that would enable them to boost the disinfection of their
water supply in that area as well.
· Despite the potential for the subdivision and not having the entire amount ofland, they would
still have the opportunity to make improvements to the property.
· ill Cupertino they currently have three wells that provide water to the residents of Cupertino
along with one interconnection with the wholesaler Santa Clara Valley Water District.
· There is also one well at the Greenleaflocation.
Vice Chair Miner:
· Asked if there is any danger of contamination of the aquifer from the construction of homes in
that area; and how deep is the aquifer.
· Asked if there had been any incidents of that at past sites where similar developments were
done, of a leak in one of the sewer lines or something similar that contaminates the area and
then the well.
Mr. Richardson:
· Said he did not perceive the possibility of any contamination as a result of the building of
homes in areas that are immediately adjacent to their wells.
· Said he did not recall any incidents of that nature around new developments, and said the
aquifers in the area are typically quite deep.
Mr. Aozasa:
· The water company plans over a hundred year period of time.
· The aquifer is likely hundreds of feet deep.
· Said the turf block or interlocking pavement to be situated at either end of the driveways or on
the cuI de sac, is an alternative and not a prescription. He said he was unable to find other cuI
de sacs that were subdivided or made with an interlocking paving or turf block paving
sequence.
· Said he wanted to ensure that the Commission was aware that in the findings for an
interlocking pavement or turf block pavement application, it was an alternative to be looked
up for drainage not a prescription for them; they would like to amend that finding for the
interlocking pavement and also either delete or amend the condition of approval on that
interlocking pavement sequence..
David Lee:
· Canvassed the neighbors; many had no objections to the project; two neighbors objected, one
had tree issues and didn't want the trees cut down. They are cooperating with the city and will
work with the arborist; the area requires a lot of landscaping, especially trees. The back and
side of the lots abut the commercial real estate and side of the lot which is an area that cries
out for landscaping. He said they will not back away from the needs of the community.
· Talked to a neighbor residing across from the lot; desired some trees up front, and will make
provisions for trees as well.
· Third neighbor expressed concern; resides across the street from the lot, tentative map shows
the private street, opening of the private street faces their front door directly and they are
practitioners of fung shui. He said he arrived at three concepts, none of which are mutually
exclusive; his desire is to help mitigate the impact of the private street to their home.
Cupertino Planning Commission
17
January 25, 2005
Discussed possible mitigation. The first possibility is to move the street over to the east by five
feet which puts the mid-section of the street facing directly into the side yard. The second
possibility is to reduce the opening of the private street to twenty feet, but keeping the street
inside at 28 feet. It narrows the opening and should not cause a safety issue, 20 feet is the
typical opening of the driveway. If the opening is narrowed to 20 feet, they can reduce the
exposure of that opening facing their home and also maintain the 28 feet width of that street in
the cuI de sac area.
· He said he offered to bear the cost of landscaping needs at the front of the Wong's home,
planting and developing a hedge so that it would obscure the street rrom their perspective and
would satisfy some of the blockage of the fung shui.
· He said he felt the proposed mitigation and offer to pay for the landscaping would address the
fung shui concerns.
· No matter when you put the street, it is going to offend somebody.
· Said it would be built into the CC&Rs that the HOA would maintain the landscaping around
the Water Company perimeter.
· Said the water company would maintain the area around the wrought iron fence, such as debris
collecting under the wrought iron fence.
Com. Giefer:
· Expressed concern about rubbish collecting in the area of the fence in a residential area.
Mr. Chao:
· To address the Planning Commission's concern about maintenance of the rront area of the
water company's property and the existing water pump station property, staff suggests that a
condition be placed requiring, prior to final recordation of the map, that a maintenance plan or
program be submitted to staff for review and approval.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Cathy Helgren, Greenleaf Drive:
· Read the letter she submitted to the Planning Commission expressing her concerns about
safety issues relative to possible contamination because of leaks in the sewer pipes on the
water company property, causing health dangers to the nearby residents.
· Also mentioned were concerns about the loss of trees, impacting the view and beauty of the
property; and diminishing property values on some adjacent homes because of the impact of
the two story homes on the existing homes.
· Opposed to the project.
Lei Wong, Greenleaf Drive:
· Opposed to the project.
· Expressed concern also about the possible contamination of the wells.
· lllustrated photos which showed various views rrom his property and the impact the project
would have on his home and privacy.
· Recommended that the Planning Commission reconsider the location of the proposed street
because of the impacts it would have on his property.
· Said that the applicant's offer to pay for the landscaping to screen the rront door was
acceptable, and narrowing the street to 20 feet rather than 28 feet was appropriate.
Deborah Hill:
· Opposed to the proposed project and the removal of the trees.
Cupertino Planning Commission
18
January 25, 2005
· Said many of the neighbors are opposed to the project.
Lynn Carter, Greenleaf Drive:
· Resides directly across from the water company.
· Expressed concern about the wrought iron fence, and suggested a more appropriate fence with
landscaping in front of the water company property.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Clarified that the house behind the pumping station would not be visible because there would
be a six foot wooden fence on the other side of the property.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Mr. Chao:
· Addressed the contamination issue; said the water district has specific standards relative to the
distance a fence, foundation or roadway can be from their piping system or underground pipes.
· Said as part of the project, a condition can be placed that prior to final map recordation, all the
utility companies review the project to ensure the placement of any new sewer system, or that
any underground facilities will not be too close to the water company's site or their equipment.
· Relative to aligoment of the street to Mr. Wong's house, by reducing the width of the road, the
Fire Department has to be involved again, since 28 feet is the minimum standard width for a
cuI de sac for single family homes.
· Staff felt the pavers were an important element of the project, especially since they are
removing a large number of trees; visually it offers a relief from the asphalt or concrete. It
also may offer Mr. Wong some visual relief.
· Staff may suggest the road be shifted by 5 feet, since it would not change much of the project.
It could be considered as a condition and work with the applicant to shift the road 5 feet to the
east of the project.
· The wrought iron fence provides a pleasing view to the trees on the water company property
and is more appealing than a wooden fence. Staff is encouraging the water company to plant
trees in front of their front yard.
Com. Saadati:
· Relative to the driveway, suggested narrowing the front portion to 20 feet; fire trucks can still
get through; their main concern is to be able to turn around. By narrowing the front portion up
to the landscaping area, additional trees could be planted on the other side to maintain some
greenery.
· The applicant also agreed to plant additional trees along the side which would keep the area
green and satisfy the concerns of the neighbors.
· Relative to potential contamination, he said the project would not have a negative impact
because the water table is so low and the aquifer is a few acres in area.
· In favor of the project, with the conditions set forth, including narrowing the road with more
trees; and planting additional trees next to the adjacent neighbors to address their concerns.
· Suggested planting shrubs against the wrought iron fence would improve the appearance and
prevent debris from flowing inside the fence and be visible.
Com. Giefer:
· Expressed concern that narrowing the opening to 20 feet, and moving it 5 feet to the right,
would remedy some of the residents' concerns; however, by doing so, it reduces the size oflot
one.
Cupertino Planning Commission
19
January 25, 2005
· Said she would prefer to continue the application, until it is understood what the impacts are of
narrowing the driveway and shifting it to the right, so that it is not a problem for the neighbors
across the street; since both the measures are necessary.
· She said if a vote was taken, she was in favor of the pavers provided they do not create an
ADA problem, and any trees retained be recorded in the CC&Rs so future owners could not
cut them down. One of the primary concerns heard is the green screen currently present, and
tree removal.
Mr. Chao:
· Said it would reduce it by 500 square feet if the opening was shifted 5 feet.
Com. Chen:
· Said she would like the neighbors' issues to be addressed before a final decision is made.
· Suggested that a condition be added that the water company be part of the plan review process
to ensure that every tree planted and all construction work done would not impact the water
lines or pump station on the security side, and impact the water quality side.
· Include a condition that the water company clean up the site and maintain the site.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Concurred that the water company should sigo off on all plans prior to installing sewer lines.
· He noted that the water company pointed out that the aquifer is a substantial distance below
the surface which also minimizes the potential for contamination.
· The issue across the street is a real financial issue because as the resident said, the fung shui
does impact the value of the property, and it an important issue that needs to be addressed. On
the one hand, the 5 foot move-over may have worked; that impacts the owner of the property,
reducing what he can develop. It also creates the problem that it is a Rl 7,000 zone; that
particular lot would be below the zoning level and you would have to shift the boundary lines
between the lots.
· Another possible solution is narrowing it to 20 feet at the opening; 20 feet is the minimum
requirement for the fire department and if it widened up after that, it may be a reasonable
solution.
· Another possibility is shifting the road to the left and meandering it back. It may make it worse
from a fung shui standpoint.
· Another possibility, at the opening, the applicant suggested that he could block the neighbor's
front door with landscaping, but another alternative may be to block part of the opening with
landscaping; and the neighbor would not be impacted.
· Said there were solutions available; he preferred to work at the stafflevel.
· Com. Saadati's suggestion of more shrubbery would solve the problem of seeing through to
the property. The wrought iron fence does make a better presentation as long as the lot is not
open to a visual eyesore.
· A property owner does have the right to develop his own property; it is not reasonable that the
city not allow the property owner to do that so that neighboring residents can have the benefit
oflooking over the fence to attractive trees.
· The pavers enhance the street and the view into the property, and are important in terms of
mitigating runoff of groundwater and the potential for doing that.
· In favor of the project if the issues can be mitigated.
Cupertino Planning Commission
20
January 25, 2005
Chair Wong:
· Thanked the neighbors for attending the meeting; the applicant worked hard to address their
concerns.
· Said he concurred with fellow commissioners, and supports moving the road 5 feet to the east,
narrow it at 20 feet and open up at 28 feet; staff recommendations on the review checks of
utilities; ensure that vegetation is planted in front of the wrought iron fence.
Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, to approve Application TM-2004-05, including the
condition entitled Retained Parcel Maintenance, stating that the applicant shall
record a covenant and deed restriction running with the land obligating existing
and future property owners to maintain the retained water company parcel and
fencing free of debris and graffiti. Additionally, landscape materials and existing
retained trees shaD be professionany maintained in a healthy, trimmed condition.
The property owner shall retain a property maintenance service to visit tbe site
on at least a monthly basis to ensure compliance with this condition. Said
covenant and deed restrictions shan name the city and the adjacent three new
homes as third party beneficiaries and shall include some surety or other
guarantees subject to the review and approval of the city attorney. Also include
narrowing the street in front to 20 feet, and moving it over 5 feet; and include
wording that the water company sign off on an plans for sewer lines.
Second: Vice Chair Miller (Vote: 4-0-1, Com. Chen abstained)
Chair Wong declared a short recess.
4.
Z-2004-03, TM-2004-11,
U-2004-09, ASA-2004-12
(EA-2004-10) Greg Pinn
(Oak Park Village) 10745
No. DeAnza Blvd.
(former Santa Barbara
GriD)
Rezoning ofa 1.37 acre parcel fromP (CG, ML,
Res. 4-10) to P(CG, ML, Res 35). Tentative Map to
create 46 residential condominiums. Use Permit to
demolish a vacant restaurant building and construct
46 residential units. Architectural and site approval for
46 residential units. Tentative City Council date:
February 1, 2005
Mr. Cbao
· Clarified that the tentative City Council hearing date is February 15, 2005; and the proposal is
for 46 residential units, not 45.
Mr. Chao presented the staff report:
· Application is for a use permit to demolish the former Santa Barbara Grill and construct a 46
unit condominium building on a podium garage.
· A tentative map and architectural site approval is also requested to allow for the 46 units.
· Applicant is also rezoning the property to be consistent with the General Plan in terms of
allowable density up to 35 dwelling units per gross acre.
· Reviewed the following, as set forth in the attached staff report: Project description, General
Plan and zoning, North DeAnza Conceptual Plan, Architectural Design, Median
Improvements, Traffic Analysis, and Parking.
Christy Ann Choy, Fehr & Peers Associates:
· Reviewed the Trip Generation Analysis conducted, based on the trip rates from the Institute of
Transportation (IT), resulting in the determination that the trip generation for the residential
project would be 270 new daily trips, 20 a.m. peak hour trips, and 24 p.m. peak hour trips. The
Cupertino Planning Commission
21
January 25, 2005
proposed condominiums are not expected to significantly affect operations at any of the
intersections on Valley Green Drive or DeAnza Boulevard.
Mr. Chao:
· Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval ofthe following: Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Use Permit application, Tentative Map application, ASA application,
and the rezoning application.
Vice Chair MiUer:
· Asked staff to review the history of why the particular property was zoned 4-10 residential
instead of 35.
Ms. Worden:
· Said it was a cleanup problem when the housing element was redone in 2001; at that time they
put the densities in for the different areas and did not go back through the zoning map and
make everything conform.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified that when the North DeAnza Boulevard Plan was adopted in the late 70s, the 10 units
to the acre maximum was put on the property. In subsequent amendments to the Plan when
they allowed the greater densities, they did not go back and change the zoning, anticipating
that as projects came in, they would need to do it on an applicant-by-applicant basis, and it was
not done comprehensively.
· He said that 10 units is consistent with the zoning; and the applicant's request is consistent
with the General Plan.
Vice Chair Miller:
· He said one part of the application led him to believe that the reason for the lower zoning was
an incentive to encourage commercial, staff is asking the applicant to do an in-lieu fee. He
asked staff to address the issue.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said it was an issue raised by the General Plan Task Force, and discussed earlier when talking
about non-retail uses replacing retail uses in the community, and shouldn't they preserve every
retail site possible just in case the market may want to respond and reopen a restaurant or build
a hotel on this site.
· As also discussed, there are numerous sites in the community that have remained dark for 5
years and in this case turned into an attractive nuisance, and it is not necessarily the best city
policy to sit back and wait for however long it might be and hope that retail is actually viable.
· The applicant was required to retain Randall Mackey with the retail real estate group to
evaluate the retail feasibility of the other site he is proposing to develop in the community,
which is the former Adobe Lounge property, which has been vacant for a long time. They
indicated that while the Adobe Lounge property he believes has viability for retail, this site
does not because of the lack of access.
· He suggested to the Planning Commission when evaluating the question of non-retail
replacing retail, two issues should be considered: (1) Critical mass; does the site contribute to
the critical mass of a retail environment. (2) The revenues to the city.
· Said they are projecting the reasonable period for paying in-lieu fees is 20 years.
· Said that if a hotel was being proposed for the site, they would prefer a hotel on the site; even
though it generates more traffic, it is a solid revenue source for the city, and could function as
Cupertino Planning Commission
22
January 25, 2005
a gateway building. The city's plan allows alternate uses. If the city does not want to allow
this, they need to be clear in the Plan; options should not be allowed if they are not going to be
honored once they meet all the community objectives.
· Many options for the site have been considered, including a mixed use project.
· He said BJ s has been successful because of the close proximity to Apple Computer employees
and access off DeAnza Boulevard, and it is highly visible; whereas the present site is not
accessible to customers.
· The present site is doomed to businesses moving in and then out, and marginal retail if
insistent that it be a retail site.
Com. Chen:
· Asked if within the North DeAnza Conceptual Plan region, where there other sites that could
utilize some of the residential units.
· Asked staff to clarify the fiscal impacts.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that the sites next to the apartment complexes near a recently approved church and also
where the temporary library was located could be potential sites.
· The suggestion is for a development agreement to backfill the potential opportunity for retail
in this location. A 20 year upfront payment would then give the city the option of either
banking it, or collecting interest on it, whatever option the City Council may chose.
· Apple has no intention on putting residential on their site and no one wants to force that on
them.
Mr. Chao:
· Answered questions from commissioners.
· Said the potential highway noise was addressed in the Plan; noise analyses were performed
and the results are attached to the staff report.
· One of the main issues analyzed was the traffic noise on the exterior and interior of the units
and it was determined that as long as they maintained certain sound transmission ratings
throughout the project, the sound noise would be under the requirements of. the building code.
· Said the units were 'for sale' units; and below market rate homes are included.
· Ordinance requires 2 parking zones for each condo unit; no requirements for guest parking.
· Applicant is proposing 103 parking stalls; the ordinance requires 92. Fifteen of the surface
spaces could be allocated for guest parking; there is overflow parking in the area for extra
guests.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that in the 2 to 1 ratio, it is anticipated that guest parking is being provided; there are 10
or 11 more spaces than are the minimum required by the ordinance. There are a number of
one bedroom units that may only have one car.
· If the applicant desired, they could put in a covenant deed restriction limiting the number of
vehicles people could bring to the site.
Chair Wong:
· Referred to a school district map and asked why the project would feed into Homestead High
School.
· Asked staff to address the funding to the high school district.
Cupertino Planning Commission
23
January 25, 2005
Mr. Chao:
· Said the information was received rrom the high school district; and because Monta Vista was
full, it was not uncommon to route the students in the new project to another school. This
particular project is also more convenient to Homestead High School.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said it was difficult to address the issue of the funding to the high school district on this
particular project. He said he felt they were over-estimating the number of high school
students coming rrom the development based on actuals in the field project.
· For the General Plan they will need to have examples of what comes out of the projects and
they need to have a sliding scale so that the developer is not penalized with an average rate
coming rrorn predominantly single family neighborhoods.
· Mixed use or lower density environment is not suitable for the site.
Greg Pinn, Pinn Brothers:
· Said the development would create the least amount of impact to the traffic than a restaurant or
hotel would.
· Felt the units would be sold to young executives, empty nesters, single people.
· The project has easy access to the rreeways for those who work in other cities.
· Pre-existing conditions exist relative to cut through traffic, stop signs and needed traffic lights;
and the applicant will work to mitigate where possible.
Chip Pearson, Dahlin Group Architects:
· Reviewed the site plan and the architectural imagery from the surrounding area.
· lllustrated the various floor plans and elevations of the units.
· Answered commissioners' questions about the architectural design ofthe units.
· lllustrated the location of the trash enclosure.
· Said the price range at today's price range would be $380K to $680K, although the units
would not be for sale for another two years.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Joe S. Barraza, Acadia Court:
· Expressed concern about the present traffic situation on Valley Green Drive, and cars exiting
from the Outback Restaurant and the gas station.
· Recommended that the present traffic problems be addressed before building the new project.
Dennis Whitaker, resident:
· Reviewed the history of the previous restaurants at the site.
· Primary reason for the failure of the businesses was location of signage, and non-access to the
site.
· Recommended that the height and density of the proposed project be reduced.
· Said the site was in an industrial center, and the site is ideal for a business site. Expressed
concern that once it is broken up for residential, other vacant areas will be filled with
residential, and there will be decrease in getting businesses to come into Cupertino.
· There are no parks in the area for residents.
· On a positive note, it serves lower cost housing because of the type of units available.
· Recommended less three bedroom units and more studio and one bedroom units.
Cupertino Planning Commission
24
January 25, 2005
· Expressed concern about allowing changes in Cupertino especially in the areas designated that
way to become something different than they were. Once you get rid of commercial areas,
there will be no place for businesses.
Joseph Cena, Greenleaf Drive:
· Thanked staff for holding the recent neighborhood meeting.
· Supports the project rather than the previous proposed hotel.
· Expressed concern about the 1raffic in the area presently and the safety factor.
· Said that suggestions for traffic mitigation were considered at the neighborhood meeting; such
as moving it down to one of the Apple access roads, and have the traffic unload further down
Valley Green toward the Bandley Street area.
· Net Manage Building is currently vacant and the traffic was not considered in the studies
conducted, or the conditions in that particular area now. Once the building is occupied, there
will not be overflow for the project.
Deborah Hill, resident:
· Supports the residential project rather than a hotel.
· Fills a housing need in Cupertino.
· May have traffic impacts.
Tom Huganin, La Roda Court:
· Expressed concern about the height and density of the project.
· Questioned if it was the right project for the time; as there will be an issue on the November
ballot relative to the style of development; heavy density and height.
· Noted that there was a Metro PCS tower close to the project that does not have an RFR study.
· Suggested moving the antenna to the top of the building with Metro PCS permission.
· Questioned how many young couples will move into the units and have children later. Studies
do not address the issue and more children may result in the project.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Mr. Chao:
· Noted that Garden Gate was presently at capacity, but Lausen Middle School will take a
portion of Garden Gate's sixth graders starting next year, which will free up some open slots
for elementary students. If not, they will be publicly bused to Nimitz if it is over capacity.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Relative to the location of the Metro PCS tower close to the project, he said staff has no
jurisdiction over it because they met the federal standards.
· Relative to shared parking between the residential units and Net Manage in the evening hours,
said that the applicant could work with Net Manage on an agreement on a voluntary basis, but
staff had no control to require them to cooperate.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said he originally felt they may be jumping the gun as they were in the middle of the review of
the General Plan with different opinions on the density of development or if it should have
residential.
· Said he felt initially they should postpone discussion until further along in the General Plan
evaluation in terms of the specific need to rezone the property.
Cupertino Planning Commission
25
January 25, 2005
· On the positive side it represents an opportunity to generate more affordable housing in the
city because of its close proximity to the highway and the noise impacts.
· Traffic needs to be addressed in more detail for the safety factor.
· The building is of high quality design and works well as a gateway building; the applicant has
worked hard to fit it into the neighborhood.
· Relative to alternative uses, since a restaurant or retail will not work well in that location, the
only choices are a housing project, hotel project or an office project. The project provides the
opportunity to add affordable housing in the city which is a major goal of the city.
Com. Chen:
· Said she welcomed the project as it provided an opportunity to develop a lot that has been idle
for some time.
· Some General Plan related issues that need to be addressed include the student ratio, the unit
allocation of 150 for the large area and how much should be allocated to this area if this area
takes 35% of the total units allowed; what is the impact to other potential lots not considered
and studied.
· It is a good opportunity to add more affordable housing in the area.
· In the General Plan community meetings, the need to address senior citizens and single small
families was discussed. Should more smaller units be built in the area to address those needs?
· It is a great opportunity with potential of the lot, but since they are so close to the General Plan
process to address some of the land use issues, she said she was not comfortable supporting the
project at this time.
Com. Giefer:
· Said there were many things right about the project; she complimented the architect on the
design, and the time and effort in creating a landmark building for the city.
· The need for affordable housing is key in the city and the project addresses the need.
· It is not good common sense to put housing on a major fTeeway regardless of the noise
mitigation created.
· Said she could not support the project as it was rezoning and putting housing along the
fTeeway. It is a significant portion of the housing allocation; if it were another structure such
as the Any Mountain site on Highway 9, she would support the type of project at that site or
other places.
Com. Saadati:
· With the high tech industry, many people are working out of their home offices.
· Said he liked the project as it had a diversity of affordable units.
· It is difficult to visualize another development in that location such as a restaurant because of
the location and access.
· Relative to traffic, Public Works can evaluate and mitigate some of the issues raised.
· The building height is comparable to the adjacent properties.
· Can visualize many people working in the adjacent offices living in the units and patronizing
the local restaurants.
· Supports the proj ect.
Chair Wong:
· Commented that the Pinn Brothers had successful projects in the city; he commended them on
the Adobe Lounge project.
· All of the commissioners support housing, but in this particular area it is surrounded by
industrial area and a fTeeway.
Cupertino Planning Commission
26
January 25, 2005
· Said he did not feel comfortable putting a residential project in the location. Said he would be
open to it if it was lower to the zoning of ten units.
· He concurred that the architectural design was attractive but in the wrong location.
· Does not support the proj ect.
Motion:
Motion:
Motion:
Motion:
Motion:
Motion:
5.
Motion by Com. Saadati, to approve EA-2004-10 per the conditions stated.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Giefer, to deny Application
EA-2004-10. (Vote: 3-1-1; Corns. Chen, Giefer, Chair Wong Aye; Com.
Saadati No; Com. Miller Abstain).
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Chen, to deny Application
Z-2004-03. (Vote: 3-1-1; Corns. Chen, Giefer, Chair Wong Aye; Com. Saadati
No; Com. Miller Abstain)
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Giefer, to deny Application
TM-2004-01. (Vote: 4-0-1; Corns. Chen, Giefer, Saadati, Chair Wong Aye;
Com. MiUer Abstain)
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Chen, to deny the Use Permit.
(Vote: 3-1-1; Corns. Chen, Giefer, Chair Wong Aye; Com. Saadati No; Com.
Miller Abstain)
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Chen, to deny Application
ASA-2004-12 (Vote: 3-1-1; Corns. Cben, Giefer, Cbair Wong Aye; Com.
Saadati No; Com. MiUer Abstain)
R-2004-18, TR-2004-07
EXC-2004-01,
V-2004-03, Greg
Richmond, 10495
Scenic Boulevard.
Residential Design Review of a new two-story
residence with Rl exceptions for reduced rront
setback, second story area exceeding 35% of the first
story, a second-story wall without the required
offsets and a second-story deck exception. Tree removal
Permit to remove one 24-inch diameter specimen oak
tree. Parking exception to allow one driveway apron stall
that is less than 20 feet in length on a single-family
residential property. Variance for a second-story deck
with a side setback less than 15 feet. Planning
Commission decision final unless appealed.
Peter GiIIi, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Said the constraints on the site were the topography and a mature oak tree.
· He reviewed the application as set forth in the staff report.
· lllustrated the site plan and noted the tree proposed for removal; the location of the second
story deck and the area of the parking exception.
· Applicant is also asking for an exception for a second story that is 45% of the first-story area.
Staff feels the applicant has made many improvements in the design and the detailing that
should help reduce the mass and bulk of the second story.
· Wood siding would be more consistent with the neighborhood; however, in talking with the
applicant, there may be other options to add some detailing to reduce the mass of the second
story without having to use wood siding.
Cupertino Planning Commission
27
January 25, 2005
· Staff is recommending changing the condition calling for siding to a condition calling for
additional detailing and materials to be agreed upon by staff and the applicant at the building
permit stage.
· To address Com. Giefer's concern that the adjacent site on city property could possibly end up
being where the Stevens Creek Trail is; in the event the property is sold at a later date before
the trail is put in, it was suggested to put a covenant on the site to infonn future property
owners that the adjacent site is city property and could be the location of the trail. The
applicant has no objection to that.
· Staff supports the entire project, but recommends the variance be denied; with the added
condition about the covenant and a change to the condition relative to the siding, that staff and
the applicant will work out additional details prior to the building permit.
Com. Giefer:
· Said that she would be concerned about putting a pool under the drip line of an oak tree,
because extensive cuts to the root system would be made even though it is elevated.
Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney:
· In response to Chair Wong's question about the variance in the back, she explained the
difference between variances and exceptions.
· In a variance, exceptional circumstances must be shown; three findings have to be made before
granting the variance: (1) That there is an exceptional circumstance; (2) Without the variance,
the property owner cannot get the full use and enjoyment of the property, which likely could
not be found either; (3) That the project isn't injurious to the surrounding properties, which in
this case likely would not be. If there is an exceptional circumstance here, the property owner
might point it out.
Chair Wong:
· How many feet smaller, or what does he need to do to get what he wants?
Mr. Gilli:
· Approximately three feet.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Provided an example of the textbook condition that usually qualifies for a variance; if there
was a large rock out cropping on the property and he could not locate or build the house unless
he was granted a variance ftom the setback rules. It is a substantial property right to be able to
utilize the property in a reasonable fashion. A deck is rarely considered a substantial property
right.
Greg Richmond, Applicaot:
· Addressed the setback; stating that staff covered the reasons why they designed the house at its
current location.
· The distance ftom the garage to the curb on the exception stall which is 17 feet instead of 20;
adding the 17 and 14, the minimum distance is 31, but the average to the garage door is 34.
· A quick check of some of the houses indicated that the houses across the street was 34, on the
comer is 32, and three in sequence down Scenic Circle is 34, 32 and 31.
· With regard to the second story deck variance, it has been discussed that it is at the back of the
house; is there a reason to require it to be there where we wouldo't be able to have an activity
that we feel is mandatory. Said he moved the house to the left to try to stay away ftom the
smaller oak tree; they wanted a small deck at that location since it is a private deck off the
Cupertino Planning Commission
28
January 25, 2005
master bedroom; the remainder of the deck is common to the back yard and other doors exiting
onto the deck.
· Regarding the stucco vs. the siding, he said he could add details in stucco and still make sure
the house does not look out of place in the neighborhood.
· At the time the neighbor's house went through desigo review, they were concerned about
parking on Scenic Boulevard because there was a curve there; they agreed that No Parking
sigos should be put there during construction for the safety of the neighborhood.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing; as there was no one present who wished to speak, the
public hearing was closed.
Com. Chen:
· Said it was a straightforward project and she supported all the major elements.
· Supported the variance.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said the applicant did a good job on the desigo; 45% on the second story is in line with the
change in the ordinance. Noted that it allowed him to have a smaller first story,
· No reason to require wood siding; stucco is not inconsistent with the neighborhood.
· If there is a way to grant the exception the deck, he said he was inclined to do that; because it
is not impacting anyone and allows the applicant to enjoy his property more.
· If there is a way to grant the variance, he supports it.
Com. Giefer:
· Asked if after the second reading of the Rl ordinance at the next Council meeting, would the
deck ordinance be part of the Rl as opposed to the accessory structure.
· Seeing that the 45% second story is also part of that future approval ofRl, could part of the
exceptional finding be that it is a mute point after about one week, and it would not require a
variance next week. Therefore he could be granted four feet this week.
Mr. GilIi:
· Said the deck ordinance would be part of the Rl.
· Said the applicant is doing everything possible to get on file before the new ordinance takes
effect because there are other aspects of the revised ordinance that will affect him in a negative
manner.
· Said that the applicant was informed that if he did not get the variance at this time, as he is
working on the building and doing the construction, he can come in for an exception after
March 1" which will go to the Desigo Review Committee. Staff has no concern with the
distance, it is a matter that it is a variance.
Com. Giefer:
· Asked the attorney if they could make the case in their findings that it is an exceptional
circumstance, because they koow the law is changing.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said the exceptional circumstances were not the biggest problem with the variance findings;
but the substantial property right aspect of it. To cut three feet of a deck is not a substantial
property right on anyone's definition. That is where the precedent is set with a baseless
substantial property right based on wanting three feet extra.
· The applicant does have an option.
Cupertino Planning Commission
29
January 25, 2005
Com. Giefer:
· Said she supported staff's position with the change in verbiage regarding the horizontal siding.
She said she was confident that the applicant and staff could work on a mutually agreeable
façade.
· Recommended that the covenant be added relating to the trail access, so that it is recorded as
part of the property and it will move forward with the property over time.
Com. Saadati:
· Supports staff recommendation regarding approval of variance.
Chair Wong:
· Concurred with the commissioners in support of the application.
· Applicant did an excellent job in working with staff for an exceptional plan; elevation is ideal.
· There is no need for wood siding.
· Agree with Com. Giefer that there should be an easement regarding the trail.
· Expressed concern about the variance, that next week the applicant can ask for an exception;
and has to pay for the exception; government should be user fhendly.
Mr. Gilli:
· Clarified the trail issue, stating that it was not that the applicant is providing an easement on
his property; he is just providing a note saying that the neighboring site, which is the city land,
might have a trail on it.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to approve
Application R-2004-18 with the addition ofthe covenant on the trail and the
removal of the requirement for wood siding. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to approve
Application EXC-2004-11 per the model resolution. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Giefer, to approve Application
TR-2004-07. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to deny Application
V-2004-03. (Vote: 4-0-1) Vice Chair Miner, Coms. Saadati, Chen and Giefer
Aye; Chair Wong Abstain)
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS
6. Consider changing Planning Commission meeting start time from 6:45 p.m. to
6:00 p.m.
Ciddy Wordell presented the staff report:
· She said that consideration of changing the time came to the Planning Commission because
the City Council was considering going to a 6 p.m. meeting; however, at their last meeting,
they decided that they would not accomplish it.
· People testified that it would be more difficult to attend the meeting at 6 p.m.
Cupertino Planning Commission
30
January 25, 2005
· The City Council decided to hold the Closed Sessions at 6 p.m., with the regular meeting to
follow at 6:45 p.m.
· It is recommended that the Planning Commission meetings remain at the same time,
Chair Wong opened the meeting for public comment.
Tom Huganin:
· Said that he agreed with staffs recommendation to leave the meeting time at 6:45 p.m.
Dennis Whitaker:
· Said he would like the time to remain the same as the residents are familiar with the 6:45 p.m.
time and it accommodates persons on flexible work schedules.
· Expressed his appreciation to the Planning Commission and staff for their hard work and
staying to such a late hour to complete the agenda.
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miner, second by Com. Saadati, to keep the meeting time
of the Planning Commission at 6:45 p.m. (Vote: 5-0-0)
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: Com. Chen reported said that she missed the last meeting.
Housinl! Commission:
· Com. Giefer reported that the Housing Commission met last week and discussed what they
should be presenting to the Planning Commission this evening.
Mavor's Moothlv Meetinl!:
· Mr. Piasecki will report on schedule.
Economic Development Committee:
Vice Chair Miner reported on his attendance at the EDC:
· There was some discussion on topics discussed at the Planning Commission meeting tonight,
such as how to encourage commercial development in the city.
· Also some further discussion about doing their best in terms of making commercial
development work throughout the city.
· Discussion about differences of opinion about the Toll Brothers application for Hewlett
Packard. There was discussion about the Chamber's support of that vs. the other side of the
equation.
Chair Wong:
· Explained that the EDC was a committee that met once a month together with the Chamber of
Commerce and the City of Cupertino senior staff members. They recently added a Planning
Commissioner; Com. Chen will represent the Planning Commission at the next meeting.
Report of tbe Director of Community Development:
· The Mayor's State of the City is scheduled for January 26,2005.
· The City Council has a goal setting session scheduled for February 4,2005, from 2 to 5 p.m.
· A Land Use discussion will be held on February 7"'; to communicate and educate themselves
on the rules currently in effect and look at given where we are with the General Plan, discuss a
Cupertino Planning Commission
31
January 25, 2005
number of detailed questions about where should residential go; how to protect retail; how to
calculate density with vertical mixed use, etc.
. Mayor's Meeting will be held quarterly; following the rotation, next commissioner to attend
wiJl be Com. Giefer, Chair Wong, Com. Chen, Com. Saadati, and Vice Chair Miller.
Discussion on the rotation to be followed will take place at the next Planning Commission
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 12 midnight to the regular Planning
Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on February 8, 2005.
SUBMITTED BY:
Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:45 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
FEBRUARY 8, 2005
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY
The Planning Commission meeting of February 8, 2005 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Gilbert Wong.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLLCALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Chair Wong
Vice Chair Miller
Lisa Giefer
Com. Saadati
Commissioners absent:
Commissioner:
Angela Chen
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Assistant City Attorney
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Peter Gilli
Eileen Murray
Chair Wong wished the community a Happy Chinese New Year.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR:
2.
Dffi-2004-05
David Perng
(Tian-Hui Temple)
7811 Orion Lane
Appeal of an approval of a Director's Minor Modification
for minor additions to an existing church. Request
postponement to Planning Commission meeting of
March 8, 2005. Tentative City Council date:
April 5, 2005.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to postpone
Application DIR-2004-05 to the March 8, 2005 meeting. (V ote:4-0-0; Com.
Chen absent)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
February 8, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING:
1.
GPA-2004-01
EA-2004-17
Citywide location
General Plan amendment to revise the General Plan.
Subject: Lane Use.
Tentative Council date: Not scheduled.
Ms, Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report:
· Explained that Parks and Trails and specific properties proposed for change on the land use
map of the General Plan would be discussed.
Ms. Therese Smith, Parks and Recreation Director:
· Provided a history of the document; in 2001 the Parks and Recreation Commission made
recommendations that were incorporated into the administrative draft which was presented to
the Planning Commission and City Council in joint session in early 2003.
· The City Council's concern revolved around the total acreage needed to keep Cupertino in
balance at 3 acres per 1,000 population, the distribution of the acreage and how it is used.
· She reviewed the total park acreage and distribution as outlined in the staff report.
· Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the document on January 6, 2005 and made no
changes to their original recommendations.
· She answered Commissioners' questions.
Com. Giefer:
· With regards to the joint agreement with the school district, what would be the circumstances
where they may not wish to continue that joint powers agreement.
Ms. Smith:
· Should they want to surplus some of their sites, they may not want to enter into that agreement
again. The biggest threat might be the demographic changes and that there aren't school age
children in the neighborhood anymore.
Com. Saadati:
· With reference to Calli Mill Plaza and Civic Center, he asked staff to explain the logic that the
part of the public open space was not counted overall.
Mr. Piasecki:
· He said it related to distinction of park type and whether it is serving neighborhood needs or
not; while they would like to add private space, it is not necessarily counted against the 3 acres
per 1000 of neighborhood serving parkland that they would like to see and the General Plan
calls for.
Ms. Smith:
· Said that it was not publicly owned land and was not sure they should take credit for it in
meeting their goal of 3 acres per 1000 population; school sites are publicly owned but Calli
Mill Plaza is not.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said they acknowledged it as a public resource, as a park or open space resource.
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
February 8, 2005
Com. Saadati:
· Said is was something that may have the potential to become a park in the future along the
railroad tracks; and asked if any thought was given to plan for the future for the potential to be
converted to a linear park.
Ms. Smith:
· Responded that the City Council adopted the Union Pacific Trail feasibility study and it was
acknowledged that the corridor was important in the future should the railroad no longer need
to run to the quarry. She said that it was shown in the Plan as a future corridor, likely in about
20 years.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said he assumed they had some input on what happens to school sites, but questioned if they
had any decision making authority.
· Questioned use of the property if not surplus.
Ms. Smith:
· Said that the city is putting over $1 million a year into maintenance of school sites, so it is a
mutually beneficial agreement.
· She said as long as those fields are being used by the school district, she couldn't imagine why
they would want to pull out of that and try to maintain them on their own.
Vice Chair MiUer:
· Said he did not understand why there should be a distinction based on whether parkland is
considered private or public; there is no reason that it would not remain as parkland just
because it is private.
· If considering school sites as parkland, there is the possibility that in fact they might be termed
surplus and disappear into parkland.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said he felt the concept is one of how do you utilize that space and does it serve neighborhood
park needs for fields and for picnic grounds and children's play yard space.
· The parks are designed with very specific objectives in mind to satisfy neighborhood needs;
which doesn't mean you cannot account for the other space, but he felt they should. There
should be a full inventory of open space that is available, including the open space in the
hillsides and owned by Peninsula Regional Open Space District or the County Parks, even
though it is a different kind of open space.
· Relative to satisfying the 3 acres per 1,000 requirement and the Quimby fees that are applied,
it is intended for neighborhood park serving needs.
· He said there was private open space in Seven Springs not available to the non-residents, and
there is a lot of private open space that is project specific, serving the project needs, and a
separate category can be accounted for. It is not serving general public needs otherwise.
Chair Wong:
· Asked how the park needs were met for developments such as Saron Gardens, Trevenia, and
the project on Imperial Avenue.
Mr. Piasecki:
· They are required to pay a park dedication fee equivalent to 3 acres per 1,000. Those park
needs were met based on the most proximate park already built in some of those
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
February 8, 2005
neighborhoods, it is a way they are providing funds to the city, so they can buy parks in
deficient neighborhoods where those neighborhoods are already satisfied in terms of the
minimum park requirements. In some cases there are not any opportunities.
Ms. Smith:
· Clarified that Blackberry Farm was funded through utility user fees.
· The Simms property and the Stocklemeir property were both opportunistic purchases; they
went on the market and the General Fund fronted the money, and those developments are now
paying back the General Fund.
· The City Council has allowed councils over past years when a good acquisition opportunity
came available, they have released reserves in order to make those acquisitions happen and
then as the developers pay the in-lieu fees, the General Fund has been made whole.
Chair Wong:
· He asked for confirmation that in-lieu fees for Saron Gardens, Trevenia, and Imperial Avenue,
are dedicated for parks in the future, to ensure that new residents get services vs. over-
crowding Creekside or Memorial Park and others.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Confirmed the accounting that Ms. Smith was referring to that they should obtain to know
where they stood; has the General Fund been reimbursed for the Simms Stocklemeir
purchases, and are the funds now going into new parks?
· Said he understood that they either had paid, or were close to paying off the fronting of money
from the General Fund.
· He explained the distribution of funding for the new parks.
Chair Wong:
· Said there were many opportunities for trails in Cupertino; but it was not detailed in the staff
report if the Stevens Creek corridor trail will be a multi purpose trail or any of the other
different trails.
· Asked if it should be in the General Plan or how would it be addressed?
Ms. Smith:
· Responded that it should not be in the General Plan because there is so much public input that
has to go into the level of design detail. If they had to address that for every trail envisioned in
the General Plan, the document would never get approved.
· She said they have debated for the last four years whether Stevens Creek trail should or should
not be a multi-use trail; and she felt that level of specificity needs to be set forth in a more
specific planning document.
Jeannie Bradford, Parks and Recreation Commission:
· Said she was available for questions and thanked the Planning Commission for their
consideration of the issue.
Mr. Peter Gilli, Senior Planner:
· When the previous General Plan was adopted, the land use map was hand drawn; not parcel
specific. Over the years the computer systems have produced a GIS system, where in 2000 it
was a guess as to what the hand drawn map looked like, which is the existing land use map.
· With the General Plan update, staff is going one step further and trying to make it parcel
specific and address some oversights in the previous maps.
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
February 8, 2005
· For example, Rancho Rinconada area which is shown as a change area on the map, presently it
does not meet its land use designation of 1-5 units per gross acre; it is presently higher. What
is being proposed is a new category that is 1-6 units per gross acre. It will not allow more
units; it will legalize what is there. It is a large area on the change map, but just a correction
on the map.
· There are many properties owned by either the water district or another public agency along
city creeks, and since the city can be site specific now and parcel specific on its land use map,
staff proposes to make those into either a special creek or riparian corridor definition.
· He referred to maps of the hillsides, and illustrated the areas showing the designated changes,
and topography of the aerials.
· Showed 3 photos of views ITom Lindy Lane, Mount Crest and what the standard residential
low 1-5 units per acre looks like.
· Reviewed the proposed land use map change ITom what it currently is, which is more
appropriate for a valley floor area, to residential low, half acre slope density; to make it match
what is on the other side of Lindy Lane.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Asked what the history of the zoning in the area was.
· Questioned when someone builds on the hillside, is there a restriction based on the amount of
dirt that has to be moved, or the amount of cut and fill that is done to the hillside.
Mr. Gilli:
· In the 90s, most of the area was Rl, and the City Council drew a line on an old land use map
where the transition was between the hillside and the valley floor area. He illustrated the
portion of the city that had been on the hillside part of that line. When it was brought forward
earlier, it was taken off the list of sites to rezone to RHS.
· Said that under the hillside ordinance, there is a trigger point for requiring a public hearing; in
general it discourages too much grading in the hillside. There is a preference to keep the hills
as natural as possible. The purpose of that exception trigger is to have a public review at that
point.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that the concept of the slope density formula has been around since the late 70s or mid-
70s. Seven Springs Ranch was part of the slope density formula which is why the hillsides are
so bad; the Seven Springs area was left untouched and the development was clustered down
below.
Chair Wong:
· Requested that staff research the date that City Council decided this portion was Rl vs. RHS.
· Currently we pass the R 1 ordinance and we get addressed a little bit, and I wanted to find out
that with the RHS and Rl do you have to fall into both categories.
· If approved and they fall into RHS, one downside for these 27 property owners is that they
couldn't subdivide if they did not meet the requirement shown on the screen.
Mr. Gilli:
· If the average slope of the lot is over 15%, they have to meet the development regulations of
both.
· Four of the properties might not be able to subdivide; of the 27, only four could presently
subdivide.
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
February 8, 2005
· Said that if in Rl but near the geologic fault line area, it would still have to go through the
geologic issues. He said at the January 26th community meeting, the subdivision impact on the
four properties was discussed in depth; many property owners are present tonight and may
speak.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said it was a two-sided coin; the other side of the coin, is that of the 27 properties, there are 23
that do not have potential for subdivision. They will have greater protections should
subdivision occur on those four properties and greater oversight when development happens,
presumably protecting their hillside property interests and perhaps enhancing their property
values in this sensitive area.
Chair Wong:
· Asked if the implementation of the new R I ordinance is not until March 1 ,t or sometime in
March; if the four property owners had concern, should they submit an application before they
implement the new Rl?
Mr. GiIIi:
· Said it would be true if subdivisions in hillside areas were easy; there is a lot of engineering
work involved, it is not something that you can apply for and have everything set in a short
amount of time.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Clarified that the current requirement is that they meet both the Rl and RHS, and asked if the
more restrictive requirement applied in each case. (Answer: Yes).
· The only change proposed is to eliminate the Rl requirements and that the requirement for
subdivision is the RHS requirement, which is more restrictive than the Rl now.
/
Mr. GiIIi:
· Said it was an issue that staff has been discussing. There is a section in RI that says buildings
proposed on sites with an average slope of 15%, have to meet RHS. It is questionable if it
would apply to a subdivision, because the subdivision doesn't propose buildings yet; it
proposes building pad, but no building.
· It is an area with two possibilities: The properties even though if they built a house and filed
quickly, it is not ironed out at this point. They could build. a house, but the house would have
to meet RHS and Rl. If they subdivide legally and it is determined to be legal, which has not
been finalized yet; you could build a house on a substandard lot; you always can in Cupertino.
Discussion ensued regarding the Moxley lot.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said that one of the dilemmas when the Moxley property came to the Planning Commission
was that there were concerns that it was hillside and perhaps the Planning Commission should
be looking at hillside designations. The problem was they were going through a General Plan
review and to interject that did not make sense; so the property owner did agree to record a
covenant limiting the size of the houses as a way of addressing the Commission's concerns
that they were really hillside lots. Having it come forward now as part of the General Plan
review was anticipated.
· Announced that a land use study session would be held Monday, February l4tl'; and the
Planning Commission will decide where they are headed on the issue.
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
February 8, 2005
Deborah Jamison, Rumford Drive:
· Commented on the draft General Plan, trail linkages and open space.
· Referred to the trail linkage map and said she was a proponent of the completion of the
Stevens Creek trail for many years, and voiced her opinion that the trail linkage coming from
where the Stevens Creek trail comes out of the Snyder Hammon House to the county park
should be prioritized higher to make the linkage over to the county park from where the trail
will come out.
· Recommended that under the Stevens Creek trail section of the draft General Plan change
"formal urban trail" to "maintained rural trail" or something similar, as she did not feel it was
appropriate to use "urban" to describe the corridor, as the purpose of the corridor was to honor,
enjoy, interpret and appreciate the natural and rural history, and keep it rural in nature.
· Said that when the County acquired 133 acres of open space when the seminary property was
developed, the Cupertino residents were promised public access to the property, which has not
occurred. She asked that it be addressed or prioritized in the General Plan.
Richard Weaver, Rumford Drive:
· Said he concurred with Ms. Jamison's comment about the trails.
· Expressed concern with the lack of Hot Topics in the General Plan on school playing fields.
· Stated that in 2003 the State of California passed a law that a new school could not be built
within 500 feet of a particular pollution source; and Cupertino contains such a source. He said
that if they could not build new schools there, they did not want to preserve the playing fields
where the damage comes from, and that is why the new schools cannot be built.
· He said if the Homestead playing fields came up for discussion, the objective would be to
close them, not perpetuate them.
· The pollution source is missing entirely from the General Plan. There are ten pages of
discussion on noise, but the pollution source causes death and illness.
· He asked why the pollution source is not addressed in the General Plan, and asked what the
residents have to do to get it there.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said that the draft Environmental Impact Report would be a good avenue.
Chair Wong:
· Suggested that Mr. Weaver put his concerns in writing to Ms. Wordell and staff would contact
him.
Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Drive:
· Suggested that a non-profit fund be set up in the city to purchase parkland. The fund could
receive bequeathments and be invested on an ongoing basis; the revenue could be used to
purchase parkland.
John Knopp, Lindy Lane:
· The Planning Commission considered rezoning about 10 years ago and decided to do nothing.
· Expressed concern about the value of the land; said he would like to subdivide his land
eventually and preserve that value.
· The January 26th meeting was informative and he welcomed the opportunity to have a
discussion with staff and address the issues. He said the letter said they did not foresee any
negative impacts, but it turned out that they probably are. It was a surprise to them that the
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
February 8, 2005
properties were rezoned Rl within the past year. Now it is being proposed for RHS and they
would now be subject to both the zoning which presents a problem if they are building or
trying to subdivide.
· They would be interested in and receptive to a proposition of allowing them to continue in the
future to elect to subdivide under the present conditions.
· With the change to Rl and RHS within a year, they cannot move that quickly. They would be
open to possibly preserving the ability to subdivide in the future.
Luciano Daile Ore, Lindy Lane:
· At the January meeting, eleven property owners were surprised to learn about the rezoning
one year before adding the RHS restriction. They were not notified before or after the change.
· Said his property was approximately one acre; and he was interested in preserving the value of
his property. A point was made that if they don't subdivide the property, the value for
somebody else is going to grow. It is not an option to buy more land surrounding his home.
· Said he understood the importance of being a good neighbor in terms of RHS, as one big
house was just built in front of him. He said to some extent he concurred with what was said
that it makes sense to make the appropriate rules so that there are not huge eyesores on top of
the hill; but at the same time would like to ensure that the fundamental property values are
preserved.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Chair Wong:
· Said Mr. Knopp had a good idea and asked what Mr. Knopp should do relative to his proposal
to see if staff was open to his idea.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said it would be appropriate for him to attend the next meeting and present his ideas if he
would like to have it discussed further.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Relative to trails, he referred to an earlier comment about some open space in the diocese
property not being made available to Cupertino residents as promised; and asked if it was
contiguous with the Rancho Rinconada park area.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said it was the Oak Valley development, and they had 2/3 of the church property as public
open space, taken over by the County. They are doing park planning.
· She said she thought the first phase was accessible to the public, but did not know the status.
Mr. GiIIi responded to Vice Chair Miller questions:
· Relative to changes a year ago to Rl, he said the properties in the area that are currently Rl
have been Rl for quite some time. The speakers may be referring to changes in Rl; in 1999
there was a requirement that if sites had a 30% slope, they had to meet both rules.
· Relative to having to meet both the R 1 and RHS, he said there was rule stating at a certain
threshold you have to meet both, which has been in existence since 1999.
· The proposal is now to put them all under RHS and simplify the process for the property
owners who do not have the potential to have a lot split.
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
February 8, 2005
Vice Chair Miller:
· Asked if everyone was put under RHS and someone had a larger parcel that may be missed by
a few feet, and staff hadn't done the calculation to know it was an issue; could they still apply
and go before the Commission for them to decide whether or not it was reasonable to
subdivide.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said it would have to meet the subdivision requirements; it cannot come in under.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that the reason why they are hearing from the property owners who have roughly one
acre; they are most at risk for losing the potential of the larger lots where you would still have
to go through the calculation.
Vice Chair MiUer:
· Asked Mr. Knopp when the changes were made in the general area to RHS, why these
particular lots were left out of those changes.
Chair Wong reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Knopp:
· Explained that they suddenly received notice that the Planning Commission was proposing the
change to the zoning, and at that time it was just nine properties; it is now eleven because of
the Moxley split. They went to the Planning Commission and the question was asked why this
hillside; and the answer was that they would get around to all of them at some point, and to
look into the issues there. They looked at it and finally decided it didn't make any sense and
decided to drop it. They went on to Regnart and rezoned it, and then some other pockets. That
is the reason it is the only one that remains as it was back then.
· He said he questioned why one of the Planning Commissioners picked those hills to rezone,
because he sat on the steepest property in all of Cupertino; his back yard dropped to the 15th
fairway at Deep Cliff. His response was that they wanted to be consistent.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said he felt if there was a rule that says over 15%, and there are properties that exceed 15%,
they should try to have consistency. However, in this particular case there were only four
properties and another approach is to treat the four properties on an individual basis,
recognizing that a precedent was set; but part of that precedent was that they were required to
reduce the size of the development on the property.
· Either way there is going to be give and take as to whether it is rezoned and goes according to
the RHS, or treat them as individual properties, knowing that they are not going to get the full
benefit of what they might have.
Com. Giefer:
· Relative to Parks and Recreation and trails, there was interesting discussion with regard to
prioritization of different trails and parklands.
· Ms. Griffin's concept of a not-for-profit to establish a fund to build future parks was a good
idea.
Cupertino Planning Commission
10
February 8, 2005
· Parks and trails remain an important aspect of our community for all our residents today and
for the future.
· Said she felt there was an inconsistency currently with the hillside properties relative to
rezoning Rl to RHS. She understood the opportunity loss that the· four lots may feel they have,
but the hills are hi1ls, and she saw erosion within that neighborhood. She expressed concern
that additional buildup along the hillside is going to cause additional hill slides, mudslides and
the like.
· Said she was sensitive to over-developing all the hills in Cupertino; concerned about the entire
area and expansive soil. She said she felt they should come up with a scheme equal for all
property owners regardless of what side of Lindy they are on.
· One of the concerns presently is they are not certain there is a problem because their properties
haven't been surveyed. Until it is known, all property owners should be treated equally and she
would prefer to make it clean and straight forward, rather than have special deals with special
property owners.
· Property owners have rights to develop their own properties, and there needs to be a balance.
They are in a hillside area; the hills are equally steep on both sides of the street on that
particular street; and the other side of the street is zoned hillside.
Com. Saadati:
· Concurred with Com. Giefer comments on parks and trails; they are important and they will
continue to focus and expand on them as much as possible and keep their eyes on future
properties as they become available, including smaller parks where possible.
· Relative to the four properties, without looking at numbers, how can one tell a difference
between 20,000 square foot lot vs. a 21,780 square foot lot.
Mr. GiIli:
· If the average slope of the particular lot is only 22% or less, then staff concurs that it is a minor
difference. If the slope of the lot is higher than 22%, then the minimum lot size gets bigger, as
outlined in the appendix of the General Plan.
· It is not an issue of 20,000 vs. 21,000; because it has to factor in the slope as a wild card.
Com. Saadati:
· Said if the slope is 50%, the lot size may double or triple, compared to a lot which would have
been suitable for a 20% or 15% lot.
· If the margin is very close, if there are two or three lots, at 22% slope, one can be subdivided
to meet the 22,000 square foot lot, and another one can be subdivided 20,000.
· Questioned if the difference would be significant that one would not allow the subdivision of
the smal1er lot.
Mr. Piasecki:
· When looking at the Moxley subdivision those lots were roughly 30% in terms of the overal1
slope, and that is not doing the ful1 slope density calculation, just a cut section and looking at
the slope of the land. Staff presumes the other lots, the one acre lots in particular, were
roughly in that range, but rather than have an academic discussion about it, since there are only
four, staff will look into whether they can do a calculation and come back to the Commission
and inform them if the lots are definitely impacted or not.
Chair Wong:
· Concurred with the speaker on connectivity, that they should look into that and also requests
fTom Corns. Mil1er and Giefer that staff look into those four properties and report back.
Cupertino Planning Commission
II
February 8, 2005
· The value to the property is important to those property owners.
· Although the comment was true that the south side or the other side is still a hillside, since
they are in transition, they want to listen to their residents and try to accommodate them as
much as possible; and protect the environment and the hillside.
· Asked staff to provide reports by the February 14th meeting.
Ms. Worden:
· Reviewed the meeting schedule and discussion of topics that would occur.
Chair Wong:
· Asked staff to list questions and do a matrix similar to the Rl.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Relative to the trails, he concurred with Ms. Jamison's recommendation to give priority to real
hiking trails over trails that follow a busy thoroughfare.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said she would get feedback rrom Parks and Recreation, and get their reaction to that and
bring it to the February 14th meeting.
Chair Wong:
· Thanked the audience for participating in the General Plan land use study, and noted that a
recommendation would be made on February 14th; and the meeting would be televised.
· Also thanked the Parks and Recreation staff and commissioners for attending the meeting.
Chair Wong declared a short recess.
3.
INT-2004-01
Simon Lin
(Cupertino Estates)
22291 Cupertino Rd.
Interpretation for the rront of the lot of a single-family
residence to change rrom Cupertino Road to
Hillcrest Road. Planning Commission decision final
unless appealed.
Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application for a request for interpretation of the rront yard of a lot of a single-
family residence to change rrom Cupertino Road to Hillcrest Road as outlined in the staff
report.
· In November 2004 the Planning Commission approved a two lot tentative subdivision map for
the property and denied a tree removal request to remove four specimen size cedar trees and an
oak tree. An appeal was filed and the City Council affirmed the Planning Commission
decision by denying the appeal.
· Staff recommends reinterpretation of the rront yard setback rrom Cupertino Road to Hillcrest
Road per the model resolution.
Simon Lee, applicant said he had nothing to add.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Com. Giefer:
· With reorienting the home, rrom 8 to 12 feet of the house is under the deodora cedars; asked if
it proposed y issues for sustaining those trees.
Cupertino Planning Commission
12
February 8, 2005
Mr. Jung:
· Said that it did not; part of the arborist report required that they do some end weight reduction
of the limbs of the cedars since they have not been well maintained over the years.
· Staff's main concern was to try to get the garage and the driveway away from the trees
because they function as a single living unit with all their roots intergrowing with each other.
· There is enough flexibility in the building envelope itself to move it away from the trees. The
applicant is willing to do so.
· Said there is an oak tree located on Lot No.1; it is a 10 inch diameter oak; the applicant has
permission to transplant the oak tree.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said he felt it made sense to do this. He said they were doing a better job of preserving the
trees and also making the site more workable from a functional standpoint for the house.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Saadati, to approve
Application INT-2004-01 per the model resolntion. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen
absent)
Chair Wong expressed appreciation to the applicant for working with staff and also preserving the
trees.
4.
DIR-2004-29
Dayna Aguirre
(Velocitel, Inc.)
21840 McClellan Rd.
Director's Minor Modification with referral to Planning
Commission to construct a wireless communications
facility at the Monta Vista High School gymnasium,
with six antennas and equipment cabinets.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Mr. Jung presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the application for referral of a director's minor modification request to allow a
personal wireless service facility, proposed by AT&T Wireless, now Cingular, consisting of
six panel antennas mounted on a parapet wall of Monta Vista High School gymnasium, as
outlined in the staff report.
· Reviewed the site plan, showing the location of the high school, adjacent residences, and the
elementary school. The diagram illustrated the distance of the antennas from the residential
property lines and showed the proposed location of the antennas on the buildings.
· Staff looked at the impacts of the project itself including the noise exposure, the PCS
equipment has a noise level of approximately 35 dbas at 25 meters. There is a lot of HV AC
equipment on the roof; when the equipment was measured during the day, the range of noise
was over 70 decibels on the rooftop; however at the residential property line which is some
distance from the building itself, there is a range of decibel levels from 49 to 55 decibels. The
city noise standard is 65 decibels; the equipment itself is well within the noise standards of the
community.
· The applicant hired a radio engineer to examine this particular facility and his report
determined that the maximum public exposure, at ground level in the open, a general
population exposure, at being a fraction of a millowatt per square centimeter, equating to 1.7%
of the maximum limit allowed by the federal government.
· Staff recommends approval ofthe director's minor modification.
Cupertino Planning Commission
13
February 8, 2005
Com. Saadati:
· Why are they proposing six antennas rather than one.
· Did they explore to locate the antenna in the middle of the gym roof.
Mr. Jung:
· The applicant will address that. They typically try to get 360 degree coverage for any of their
antenna sites, with a minimum of three antenna.
· To get the height requested, putting it on the center might make it more visible and more
difficult to screen.
· They are sensitive to the community's needs and did not want to exceed the height of the
building itself.
Com. Giefer:
· Would other vendors be able to co-locate?
Mr. Jung:
· Rooftop co-location is easier to do than a monopole location because the vendor does not own
the rooftop of the building, and it would be up to the school district whether they want to have
additional carriers; which would also require additional antenna placement.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Asked if it was a coverage or capacity site.
· Is there a difference in power output between the two types of sites.
Mr. Jung:
· Said it was both; the extra antennas are likely there for capacity.
· Said the applicant could address the questions.
Chair Wong:
· Asked why there was an expiration date on the model resolution on Page 4-5.
· Asked staff to explain why the application is to the Planning Commission and not the school
district; and what is the school district's input.
Mr. Jung:
· Said the expiration dates were included since they know that the state of the technology and
the technology of the camouflaging techniques can change rapidly in the industry, they want to
have an opportunity to go back in and make things better when possible.
· The reason the application is before the Planning Commission instead of the school district, is
that schools are not allowed to approve anything that does not have to do with the school's
mission. They are a government agency and have a right to carry out their mission and do
things without interference from other government agencies, but it is a private lease they are
entering into with AT&T Wireless, does not affect the education of the school and must get
city permission to erect the antennas.
· Relative to the school district's approval, the application form is signed by the school officials.
Chair Wong:
· Asked staff to review the health issues and the telecommunications document that the city
passed, and explain why there are some things that the Planning Commission can address and
some they cannot address.
Cupertino Planning Commission
14
February 8, 2005
Mr. Jung:
· The Federal Communications Act passed in 1996 recognized the city's rights to regulate
antenna structures for these types of facilities within certain limits.
· One of the limits established was that cities cannot regulate these types of facilities based
solely on the emissions generated from the radio frequency as long as those emissions meet the
federal safety standards. That cannot enter into the Planning Commission's discussion; it is a
matter of design only.
Ms. Dayna Aguirre, Velocitel, representing AT&T Cingular Wireless:
· Said that currently Cingular is experiencing some coverage difficulty in the area causing its
users to drop calls or have difficulty placing calls. The proposed facility would alleviate these
problems providing coverage primarily to those residing in the area as well as those
commuting within the vicinity.
· Wireless communications is necessary within residential areas, not only for those working or
telecommuting from home, but for security reasons, allowing residents in an emergency
situation when landlines may not be available, to place a call to emergency services or to
check with family members.
· Locating a wireless facility within residential areas is a sensitive issue, and attempts were
made to locate beyond the area, but were unsuccessful. The one location considered was One
Results Way, a two story commercial building which did not provide enough height for the RF
objectives, which is why they chose Monta Vista High School. The new gymnasium has the
most height in the area and it was an opportunity to locate on an existing building rather than
to locate on a new pole.
· Applicant has worked with staff to come up with a design that works well; met with the
community; and prepared MF studies as well as noise studies and feel they are complying with
the regulations.
· The antennas will be stealth and will not be seen and will be screened with adequate
architectural elements to integrate with the new building.
· This is viewed as a good solution and opportunity for the school to generate income and
enable Cingular to service their clients, working within the city's development standards.
· Responding to an earlier question, she said that six antennas is standard on a facility; for
budget reasons, if a site does not meet certain standards, they will not approve it because it is
costly to put up a site, and they have to be certain it makes economic sense.
· Relative to co-location opportunities, other carriers are welcome to co-locate if it works for
their needs. They have their own antennas and would have to do intermod studies to ensure
there was no interference.
· She said that the coverage would not necessarily be increased, but is primarily for the
residential areas which covers approximately one mile.
· The height of the antennas is 43 feet; and will not go beyond the parapet.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Joanne Lee, Olive Avenue:
· She asked if multiple wireless companies could co-locate on the pole, and also asked if the
Planning Commission would evaluate the impact of the combined vendors locating on the
same pole.
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
February 8, 2005
· Asked if the Planning Commission considered a height factor. where the 42, 2 inches
maximum height was derived from; if it could be increased; and if any other options were
considered.
· Said she would prefer a higher antenna rather than less visible antennas on the gymnasium
next to the student buildings.
· Recommended that the antenna be increased in height 10 to 20 feet.
Dennis Yau, Hyannisport Drive:
· Opposed to the application.
· Expressed concern because there was no space between his back yard and the building on
which the applicant is proposing to mount the antenna; there are 6 antennas, 2,000 watts each,
in constant operation. The impact relative to interference is not known yet.
· Expressed concern about long term health impacts on children.
· Recommended that the school be involved in the discussions and the concerns be expressed to
them of the potential negative impacts.
Sherry Hsu, Imperial Avenue:
· Said that a previous proposal for an antenna placement in Jollyman Park was denied; one
argument being the negative impact on the children using the park.
· The high school and schools in the area have a high population of students attending as well as
many teachers who are in the buildings all day; she expressed concern for the health and safety
for the attendees as well as the neighbors.
· Asked the Planning Commission to consider the serious issues of health concerns relative to
the RF emissions.
Tom Huganin, La Roda Court:
· Said there were two previous applications that were denied and had a lot of public outcry.
· Asked if the city would use their RFR experts to do the study and bill the applicant; the
applicant paying for it may have a biased judgment that was brought up at the last tower
application. It would be better if the city was handling the issue.
· Said he felt it would be wise to have a study re-done to reflect that there is an elementary
school nearby.
· Relative to co-location, he asked if the applicant would be able to put their antennas behind the
screen mesh and have the same installation they presently have. The applicant is willing to co-
locate; it should be put in writing that the applicant agreed to co-locate, to ensure clarity in the
future as the competitors in the market become more competitive and lock each other out.
· Asked how the night time numbers were derived.
· Applicant stated that each tower would cover one mile; to ensure adequate coverage the city
would need one tower per mile; is that what the city wants?
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Mr. Jung responded to the previous speakers' comments:
· Relative to the question if the Planning Commission has considered putting multiple antennas
on the building, he said it was a possibility; however they presently do not have another carrier
interested in co-locating on the location. Sprint is another carrier located on Imperial Avenue.
· Said there would likely be some demand for another carrier to locate on the premises; the
rooftop is available to them.
· The reason a co-location requirement was not placed in the resolution, is staff found it was a
problem with the monopoles, because they are owned by the carrier and they have a
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
February 8, 2005
competitive interest not to locate another competitor on their pole; in this particular case they
do not own the roof, and another carrier could go on the roof.
· Staff would not objective to a condition stating that the applicant shall allow another carrier to
co-locate behind its architectural screen.
· Relative to a question if it was safer the greater the distance of the antenna from the exposure
sites, why not make the antennas taller on the building. He said he had not heard that before.
Increasing the height of the antennas would make them visible and there would be concern on
residents' part and they would have been showing up at the hearing. He said in general, the
preference of the public is not to see them, whether or not you can make it taller. The
applicants would not object to making the antenna taller, but the overall community does not
appreciate seeing them.
· The wireless master plan does call for stealth installations or something that is relatively
unobtrusive.
· Relative to the concern about interference with elec1ronic devices, the communication devices
are required to operate within certain specific frequencies, and in most cases the problem is
with the electrical device owned by the complaining party that is not operating within the
frequencies it is supposed to operate in; as a result it is capturing other stuff from devices that
are operating within their assigned frequencies.
· Relative to the school being involved in analyzing the issue, he said they had a signed
application from the school dis1rict on the proposal; Fremont Union High School Dis1rict has
allowed antennas on other of its high school campuses; one is located at Cupertino High
School and some located at Fremont High School. The school dis1rict is involved, not certain
to what degree they involve the parents or other staff. The city has consent from the school
district to proceed with this application.
· There is no separate exposure limit for elementary school students. There are two different
exposure limits; the occupational limit, which is higher for people who work in the industry
setting up the equipment; they have a higher exposure limit than the other group which is
referred to as the general population group, with the uncon1rolled exposure because they are
not working around the equipment.
Dave Minger, Velocitel:
· Said he supported the applicants.
· The search ring radius and antenna propagation radius is a one-quarter mile radius for a one-
half mile diameter; that is the primary area sought to be served.
· There will be some additional signal effects that will go out some beyond that, but primarily is
a circle one-half mile in diameter.
Com. Saadati:
· Said that he did not feel there were any architectural issues related to the antennas.
· Noted that his daughter attends Monta Vista High School.
· Supports the application.
Com. Giefer:
· It is a well screened, stealth designed antenna; if the application is passed, would like to
stipulate that other vendors be allowed to co-locate behind the screening.
· Noted that she had a child attending Monta Vista High School also.
· Supports the application.
Cupertino Planning Commission
17
February 8, 2005
Vice Chair Miller:
· Asked if a noise study was done at night as opposed to the daytime.
· Asked for clarification on power output as a previous speaker indicated that the power output
was 2000 watts, but his text on the discussion said 200 watts.
Mr. Jung:
· Noted that the noise measurements were made during the daytime and the main focus was the
air conditioning equipment; what is actually analyzed is the noise of the PCS equipment itself
and that is much quieter, 35 decibels and that meets both the daytime or night time standard.
Bill Hammett, Hammett & Edison, Engineers:
· Authored the report on RF exposure considerations.
· Said the data he was provided indicated 2130 watts as the maximum toward the horizon from
the antennas, which was the basis for his study and staffs conclusions.
· Explained that the 200 watts may have been the total amount of input power to the antennas.
He said it was studied as a worst case scenario, the figures for the compliance of the federal
standards were based on the higher level.
· The percentages were based on the 2000 watts, not the 200 watts.
Vice Chair Miller:
· A number of speakers referred to previous applications at Jollyman and Tin Tin Market, which
were denied.
· He clarified that the Planning Commission is to look only at architectural and noise issues
relative to the location of the antenna, and not to look at issues relative to power output or the
environmental effects.
· Said he understood the neighbors' concerns, but felt the neighbors should speak to the school
because they are the ones allowing the application to go forward.
· The Planning Commission is limited in terms of what they can and cannot approve.
· Supports the application; from a design standpoint, it is very nicely designed and is almost
invisible to the public.
Chair Wong:
· Said he concurred with his colleagues; and understood the neighbors' concerns as well.
· Agreed with Vice Chair Miller's comment that the concerns should be addressed at the school
district level since they are the landlord.
· The Planning Commission is to address the architectural and noise aspect only.
· Said he felt the applicant did a good job architecturally in screening it, had good community
outreach and two speakers explained the RFs and other concerns as well.
· Said he supports the application.
· The public has the right to appeal the decision to the City Council.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Com. Giefer, to approve Application
DIR-2004-29 as amended. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent)
Mr. Piasecki noted that the Planning Commission decision is final, unless appealed within 14 days
to the City Council. The appeal fee is $140.00.
OLD BUSINESS: None
Cupertino Planning Commission
18
February 8, 2005
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: Chair Wong reported that the meeting was cancelled due to
lack of business.
Housinl! Commission: Com. Saadati said the next meeting was scheduled for February 10,2005.
Economic Development Committee Meetinl!: Will meet quarterly.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Mr. Piasecki reported:
· The City Council met February 4th to review their goals for the upcoming year. When the
Planning Commission goals are brought forward, the City Council's umbrella goals will be
discussed.
· On February 7'", the City Council had a meeting to discuss land use policies, clarifications,
procedures. City Council decided that they would consider amending the ordinance that
requires them to review any General Plan amendment request before they can move forward
into an application format.
· Said there would be an opportunity for Planning Commissioners to have e-mail reception at
City Hall; however, messages going out from there would go out on the personal e-mails.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetinl! With Commissioners:
· Quarterly meetings held first Wednesday of the month, quarterly from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
in Conference Room C. The meetings for the year are: Wednesday, February 9'h, Wednesday,
May 11'", Wednesday, August lOth, and Wednesday, November 9,2005.
· Ms. Wordell said that she would verify if the meeting February 9th was still scheduled.
Other:
Vice Chair Miller:
· (1) Asked staff to respond to comments made by a speaker at a February 7'h meeting, who
suggested that the city may want to look at alternate sources of revenue, and provided an
example of Palo Alto having control over some of the utilities, delivering utility services, and
getting some revenues from that.
· (2) Asked staff to clarify the discussion about the cost of housing; in comparison the revenues
received from housing. One of the projects coming to the Planning Commission is the Hewlett
Packard site for 350 housing units for that site; which will generate approximately slightly less
than $2 million in property tax revenue; generating about $70,000 for Cupertino, equivalent to
approximately $200 per unit. How does it compare to what the cost of services is those units,
and if the cost is higher, does the commercial offset that or are there other ways to recover
those costs.
Mr. Piasecki:
· (1) Said it wasn't feasible for Cupertino; Palo Alto started up their utility functions many
decades ago when it was easier and less expensive to establish it and built it from there, and
charged for that service. He commented that it wasn't impossible, but Cupertino would have
to purchase and market rates for those facilities and try to recoup those purchase costs.
Cupertino Planning Commission
19
February 8, 2005
Cupertino is under a very difficult and constrained budget presently. The City Manager will
be addressing the comments.
· (2) If calculated on a gross overall basis, the cost to run city government divided by the
population; what is the population that will come from this project; not certain what the costs
are to provide all the services; an analysis could be done for that; it is a good exercise to go
through.
· A secondary issue raised by the General Plan Task Force is that the city should not provide
ownership housing on a site that has the potential for retail sales tax generation; that is
reviewed as more of an opportunity cost to the city, and it should be reserved at all costs.
· Staff has been discussing the feasibility of doing some type of in-lieu fee to level the playing
field for residential and retail; the thinking being that the rules for retail are handed down from
the state. Staff is looking for different ways of funding the services it provides and they can
do some fiscal analysis along the lines suggested.
· Mello Roos can be considered, but they are difficult to form.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said that the Planning Commission discusses once a year their work plan for the year, based
on City Council goals for the most part, which staff will bring forward next month.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the General Plan study sessIOn on
Monday, February 14,2005 at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community
Hall.
SUBMITTED BY:
Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Application No.: GPA-2004-Ol, EA-2004-17 AgendaÐate: February 22, 2005
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location! APN : City-wide
Application Summary:
General Plan amendment to revise the General Plan
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Complete, as much as possible, the preliminary directions on the Land
Use/Housing Decision Matrix
2. Discuss the Environmental Resources Element
3. Continue this agenda item to March 8, 2005
Background:
The City Council authorized the Task Force Draft General Plan as the public
hearing draft for the General Plan review. The Task Force Draft and other
supporting documents were provided to the Planning Commission in September
2004. The City Council requested that the Planning Commission focus on the
Hot Topics, as discussed in the Hot Topics Summary Matrix and Background
Report.
The Planning Commission held three public hearings and a special meeting on
various topics in the Land Use/Housing elements. The Commission provided
preliminary direction on some of the land use/housing hot topics at the special
meeting, and agreed to continue the discussion to this meeting (see Exhibit A). A
summary of the Commission's preliminary decision is provided. Probably there
will be additional discussion on some of the decisions; for example, on whether
or not mixed use would be required to receive maximum heights. Staff's
preliminary recommendation is also included; in some cases it has changed from
the "new option" recommended in the Hot Topics document.
Discussion:
Additional information requested
The Commission requested additional information on the "undesignated"
category of housing units. The existing General Plan (Exhibit B) has a category of
housing units called "undesignated," as shown on page 3-5. Forty units are
allocated in this category. There is another category on that page called "Existing
Inventory of Residential Parcels," which has 947 units (see page 3-6). These are
I-I
General Plan Review
Page 2
potential units in the neighborhoods, which include the unbuilt potential of R3
(apartment) properties. .
The Task Force options provide for 166 or 741 units as "undesignated" (see
fourth page of Exhibit B). Staff provided a new option in the "Hot Topics
Document" for a higher number of "undesignated" units so that it would be
adequate for both the "undesignated" units in the special planning areas and the
neighborhoods. Staff estimates that there are approximately 600 potential units in
the neighborhoods, leaving a deficit of units available in the Task Force buildout .
option and approximately 140 units in the alternate option. The new option
increases the "undesignated" units by approximately 100 units.
Environmental Resources:
The original Environmental Resources Element was prepared by Cupertino's
consultants, Planning Resource Associates. The Task Force amended their draft,
as shown in Exhibit C. Commissioner Giefer worked on this element as a
member of the Task Force. The recommendation for a Task Force or Commission
to develop a Sustainability and Resource Plan for the City was identified as a Hot
Topic due to limitations on staff resources. However, the more important aspect
of this subject is that there is increased emphasis on sustainability in this draft,
which is an important step forward. The consultant for this element will be at
the meeting to further discuss this issue.
Next Steps:
The tentative schedule for remaining meetings is:
· March 8 Circulation and Health and Safety
(with Bicycle/Pedestrian and Public Safety Commissions)
· March 14 Circulation/Environmental Resources/Health and Safety Study
Session (extra meeting" 6:45 Community HaIl)
· March 22 Preliminary amendments to Task Force Draft and Draft
Environmental Impact Report
· Added: April 12 Possible second meeting on Draft Environmental Impact
Report
· April 26 Recommend Approval of Draft General Plan and Draft
Environmental Impact Report to City Council
Enclosures:
Task Force Draft General Plan, Hot Topics, Corrections Document, Minority
Report (provided previously, please bring to meeting)
Exhibit A: Discussion Outline
Exhibit B: Existing General Plan, Pages 3-5 to 3-6 and Page 2-17 Task Force Draft
Exhibit C: Environmental Resources Task Force Draft, strike-through version
Document: San Mateo Countywide Guide, Sustainable Buildings
/- JL,
General Plan Review
Page 3
Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner ~ ~
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~
G:planningjpdreportjGPA-2004-012-14-05
/~ 3
HOT TOPIC
LU-l:
MAXIMUM BUILDING
HEIGHT (in feet)
SPECIAL CENTERS
Monta Vista
Valko Park S.
Heart of City
Homestead
City Center
N. De Anza
Valko Park N.
*if mixed use
60
45
60
45
60
45
45
45
45+
45
60
45
60Apple
45
45
45
45*
45*
60Apple
30-45
45*
45*
60*
45
45
45
45
60
60
60
35-45
45-60*
Commission majority agrees on 60. Staff; 45
Commission majority agrees on 30-35.
Staff: 30 for two-story, 35 for third-story
elements like dormers
Commission majority agrees on 60.
Staff: 45 except 60 for future Valko hotel
(this would be a post-Development
Agreement height, since the Valko
Development Agreement locks in the
previous General Plan until 2006)
Commission agrees on 45
Commission majority agrees on 45
Commission agrees on 45
Commission majority agrees on 45 (with 2
supporting 60 for Apple)
Staff: 45
30
GW
30
LG
30-35
DIRECTION
- -
MM AC
2-3
35
TS
COMMENTS
Heights are rriaximum and will be
considered along with good design, setbacks
and ,.£ossible mixed use
CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DECISION MATRIX
LAND USF/HOUSING ELEMENTS
PRELIMINARY
Revised 2/22/05
EXHIBIT A
~
,
-..
LU-2 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY NON-RESIDENTIAL City-wide allocation of
AND UNITS ALLOCATION Commercial,
DIVERSITY OF LAND Office/Industrial, Hotel
USE GW MM AC TS Rooms and Residential Units
SPECIAL CENTERS Commissioner Giefer
deferred her preliminary
recommendations, but stated
that she possibly supports
the Administrative Draft,
and is possibly interested in a
city-wide allocation.
Manta Vista --- 12 12 12
VaIleo Park S. 35 35-50 291 35
units
Heart of City 25 25 25 35
Homestead 50 50 35 35
City Center 35 35 35 35
N. De Anza 0 0 25 35
Valko Park N. 0 35-50 0 20'
Bubb Road 0 12 12 20
Undesignated
HOT TOPIC
DIRECTION
COMMENTS
1.
I.('
\
.........
HOT TOPIC
LU-3:
COMMERCIAL FLOOR
AREA RATIO
LU-4:
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LU-5:
ONE-PERCENT FOR ART
ORDINANCE
DIRECTION
3
Ordinance would require
public and private
development to set aside 1 %
of total project budget for on-
site art.
Draft calls for a ten-year
revenue forecast.
COMMENTS
A low FAR is proposed to
encourage mixed use. It
needs to be changed if mixed
use is not allowed.
~
\
......
G:planninglgenplanJpublic hearing draft/discussion outline matrix 2-14-05
OTHER TOPICS DIRECTION COMMENTS
OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND
TRAILS .
is of primary importance.
HOT TOPIC
SPECIFIC PROPERTIES (LAND
USE MAP)
Hillside properties
DIRECTION
-
GW LG MM
Hillside Hillside Hillside
Study
TS
Hillside
Allow
Subdivision
If Ceo OK
Safety
4
AC
COMMENTS
"0-
........
3-4
~AL
ADEQUATE SITES
FOR HOUSING
EXHIBIT B
Housing
conversion of any affordable units to market rate, specifically the 100 unit Sunnyview devel-
opment (affordability subsidies are scheduled to expire in 2004).
4. SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
Some of the households that have special housing needs in Cupertino include homeless,
elderly and disabled households. The City needs to continue its relationship with special
need providers and to support the provision of additional housing opportunities where
feasible.
5. EQUAL ACCESS TO HOUSING
A fundamental right is the ability for all persons to have equal access to housing, regard-
less of factors such as religion, ethnicity, age or sexual orientation. It is important that the
Oty continue to ensure equal access to housing and to support groups and organizations
that provide fair housing counseling/irúormation services.
Goals, Policies and Programs (2001-2006)
THE FOLWWING PAGES INCLUDE GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
DESIGNED TO ADDRESS TIIE NEEDS AS IDEN lIl'LhV ABOVE AND IN TIIE
HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL DOCUMENT.
A
ExPAND TIIE SUPPLY OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR ALL ECONOMIC
SEGMENTS.
iii Policy 3-1: Sufficient Residentially Zoned Land for New ConstructionNeed
Designate sufficient residentially-zoned land at appropriate densities to pro-
vide adequate sites that will meet ABAG's estimate of Cupertino's new con-
struction need of 2,325 units for 2001-2006. Included with that need are the
following objectives:
Units Affordable to Verr Low Income:
Units Affordable to Low Income:
Units Affordable to Moderate Income:
Units Affordable to Above Moderate Income:
TOTAL
378
188
626
1.133
2,325
units
units
units
units
Units
II
Implementation Program 1: Housing Units by Planning District
Encourage residential development in the following planning districts; as
provided below. Residential development in these planning districts
includesmixed-use, multi-unit residential, and single-family residential at a
density of 15-35+ units per acre. Adequate infrastructure is currently avail-
able to all districts.
(Please see map on page 73, which identifies the locations for the praposed units /Jy
Planning District.)
THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
¡-F
Housing
-
Time Frame:
2001-2006
Responsible Party:
City of Cupertino, Planning Department
Quantified Objective:
Heart of t/1£ City District
433 Units at 35 Units per Acre (12.5 Acres)
North DeAnza District
150 Units at 35 Units Per Acre (4.25 Acres)
Bubb Planning District
150 Units at 15 Units Per Acre (10 Acres)
Homestead District
0ndesignat~
TOTAL
605 Units at 50 Units Per Acre (12 Acres)
40 Units at 20 Units Per Acre (2 Acres)
1,378 Units
iii Implementation Program 2: Land Use Designations
In order to allow for the number of units as identified in Program #1 (Hous-
ing Units by Planning Districts), some parcels of land in the specified Plan-
ning Districts will need a change inland use designation or zoning. The Gty
will change land use designations/zoning-to'reflect at least the density range
of 15-50 units per acre on those parcels during the 2001-2002 update of the
General Plan.
Time Frame:
2001-2002
Responsible Party:
Gty of Cupertino, Planning Department
Quantified Objective:
North DeAnza District: Revise zoning so that all 4.25 acres are zoned
at a minimum of 35 units per acre.
Bubb District: Revise zoning so that all 10 acres are zoned at
a minimum of 15 units per acre.
Homestead District: Revise zoning of 2 acres to 50 units per acre so
that a total of 12 acres are zoned at 50 units per
acre.
iii Implementation Program 3: Existing Inventory of Residential Parcels
Include the existing inventory of residentially-zoned parcels that have been
identified as vacant, underdeveloped or infill parcels in addressing the Re-
gional Housing Need.
Time Frame:
~2001~20Ö6
Responsible Party:
Gty of Cupertino, Planning Department
THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
3-5
/- c¡
3-6
Housing
-
-
Quantified Objective:
C- ¡3'9ùruts at <15 Units Per Acre, 29 Acres Total
182 U)\ts at 15-20 Units Per Acre, 12 Acres Total
2~ts at 20-35+ Units Per Acre, 16 Acres Total
-II- Imþlementan07iProgram4: SecondDwellingUnitOrdinanæ
Evaluate and revise, if necessary, the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance to en-
courage the production of more second units on residential parcels. Evalu-
ate existing parking, square footage minimums and other requirements to
determine whether revisions would encourage the development of more sec-
ond units.
Time Frame:
2001-2002 Evaluate and revise program, if
necessary
2001-2006: Continue to implement program
Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Planning Department
Quantified Objective: 25 Second Units Produced, 2001-2006
1'1 Policy 3-2: Identify sites for 500 additional housing units (units in addition to the
2,325 unit Regional Housing Need Allocation) as part of the General Plan Update,
subject to analysis of traffic and other related impacts.
II Implementation Program 5: General Plan Update
During the General Plan Update of 2001-2002, sites will be evaluated to pro-
vide 500 dwelling units, in addition to those identified for the Regional Hous-
ing Need Allocation. Sites will be evaluated based on environmental impacts
and traffic analysis. If these impacts are determined to be minimal, the City
may choose to designate sites for up to 500 housing units. .
Time Frame: 2001-2002
Responsible Parly: City of Cupertino, Planning Department
Quantified Objective: 80 Very Low Income Units
40 Low Income Units
135 Moderate Income Units
245 Above-Moderate Income Units
500 Total Units
THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
/ -/[J
CoMMUNlTY DEVEWPMENT
2-17
Commercial (sq. ft.) Office (.q. ft.) Hotel (rooms) Residential (DU)
2000 Built Buildout 2000 Built Buildout 2000 Buitt BuJldout 2000 Built Buildout Alternative
Neighborhood
Manta Vista 88.816 99,698 416,557 456.210 - - 760 902 902
Oak Valley - - - - - - 178 178 178
Fairgrove . - - - - - 220 220 220
Other Are9 - - - - - - 17,376 (17;¡9~ \ n~
r.. .. j II..
Commercial Centers
Heart of the City 1,182.456 1.476,115 510,531 521,987 - - 238 681 500
Valleo Park South 1,110,700 1,902,546 708,057 1,091,824 - 764 - 125 0
Homestead Road 238,735 193,678 69,550 69,550 126 126 484 977 BOO
Other Areas -:J 494,576 495,415 268,735 250,604 - - 6 c+o; rJ4k
Employment Centers
N DeAnza Blvd. 44,979 51,372 2,048,021 2,266,206 - - - 215 300
City Center 29,358 79,011 1,032,072 1,149,513 - 224 219 713 714
Valleo Park-North 127,806 133,147 2,843,144 3,069,676 315 315 551 .I!2 551
Bubb Road - - 428,645 444,435 - - - 81 81
Citywide 3,317,426 4.431,000 8,325.312 9,320,005 441 1,429 20,032 22,369 22,369
~ Policy 2-20: Diversity of Land Use
Maintain a city structure of Neighbor-
hoods, Commercial areas, Employment
areas and Education{ Cultural areas.
Provide sufficient development opportu-
nities for these areas in order to enhance
their distinct character and functions,
while maintaining the desired trans-
portation levels of service.
HOT
LU-2
TOP I C
Strategies:
1. Citywide Development Allocation.
Allocate new development citywide in
accordance with Table 2-A Develop-
ment Allocation.
Table 2·A. Develoþtrt£nt Allocation.
c
o
2. Development Criteria. Floor area ratios
for non-residential uses may be exceed-
ed through the development review
process using established criteria for
evaluating projects. Floor area potential
not fully utilized in new development
will be returned to the relevant devel-
opment allocation category.
3. Flexible Allocations. Allow flexibility
among the allocations assigned to each
geographical area. Allocations may be
redistributed from one geographical
area to another if necessary and if no
significant environmental impacts, par·
ticularly traffic, are identified.
0;2.)
3q)
TASK FORCE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
_!~
~
1- / /
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Application No.: GPA-2004-0l, EA-2004-17 AgendaDate: February 22, 2005
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location! APN:City-wide
Application Summary:
General Plan amendment to revise the General Plan
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Complete, as much as possible, the preliminary directions on the Land
Use/Housing Decision Matrix
2. Discuss the Environmental Resources Element
3. Continue this agenda item to March 8, 2005
Background:
The City Council authorized the Task Force Draft General Plan as the public
hearing draft for the General Plan review. The Task Force Draft and other
supporting documents were provided to the Planning Commission in September
2004. The City Council requested that the Planning Commission focus on the
Hot Topics, as discussed in the Hot Topics Summary Matrix and Background
Report.
The Planning Commission held three public hearings and a special meeting on
various topics in the Land Use/Housing elements. The Commission provided
preliminary direction on some of the land use/housing hot topics at the special
meeting, and agreed to continue the discussion to this meeting (see Exhibit A). A
summary of the Commission's preliminary decision is provided. Probably there
will be additional discussion on some of the decisions; for example, on whether
or not mixed use would be required to receive maximum heights. Staff's
preliminary recommendation is also included; in some cases it has changed from
the "new option" recommended in the Hot Topics document.
Discussion:
Additional information requested
The Commission requested additional information on the "undesignated"
category of housing units. The existing General Plan (Exhibit B) has a category of
housing units called "undesignated," as shown on page 3-5. Forty units are
allocated in this category. There is another category on that page called "Existing
Inventory of Residential Parcels," which has 947 units (see page 3-6). These are
;' -I
General Plan Review
Page 2
potential units in the neighborhoods, which include the unbuilt potential of R3
(apartment) properties. .
The Task Force options provide for 166 or 741 units as "undesignated" (see
fourth page of Exhibit B). Staff provided a new option in the "Hot Topics
Document" for a higher number of "undesignated" units so that it would be
adequate for both the "undesignated" units in the special planning areas and the
neighborhoods. Staff estimates that there are approximately 600 potential units in
the neighborhoods, leaving a deficit of units available in the Task Force buildout
option and approximately 140 units in the alternate option. The new option
increases the "undesignated" units by approximately 100 units.
Environmental Resources:
The original Environmental Resources Element was prepared by Cupertino's
consultants, Planning Resource Associates. The Task Force amended their draft,
as shown in Exhibit C. Commissioner Giefer worked on this element as a
member of the Task Force. The recommendation for a Task Force or Commission
to develop a Sustainability and Resource Plan for the City was identified as a Hot
Topic due to limitations on staff resources. However, the more important aspect
of this subject is that there is increased emphasis on sustainability in this draft,
which is an important step forward. The consultant for this element will be at
the meeting to further discuss this issue.
Next Steps:
The tentative schedule for remaining meetings is:
· March 8 Circulation and Health and Safety
(with Bicycle/Pedestrian and Public Safety Commissions)
· March 14 Circulation/Environmental Resources/Health and Safety Study
Session (extra meeting" 6:45 Community Hall)
· March 22 Preliminary amendments to Task Force Draft and Draft
Environmental Impact Report
· Added: April 12 Possible second meeting on Draft Environmental Impact
Report
· April 26 Recommend Approval of Draft General Plan and Draft
Environmental Impact Report to City Council
Enclosures:
Task Force Draft General Plan, Hot Topics, Corrections Document, Minority
Report (provided previously, please bring to meeting)
Exhibit A: Discussion Outline
Exhibit B: Existing General Plan, Pages 3-5 to 3-6 and Page 2-17 Task Force Draft
Exhibit C: Environmental Resources TaskForce Draft, strike-through version
Document: San Mateo Countywide Guide, Sustainable Buildings
/- ;L,
General Plan Review
Page 3
Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Plarmer <:::::::::::' ~
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~
G:plllI11Ungj pdreportj GP A·2004-01 2-14-05
/- 3
HOT TOPIC
LU-l:
MAXIMUM BUILDING
HEIGHT (in feet)
SPECIAL CENTERS
Monta Vista
Valko Park S.
Heart of City
Homestead
City Center
N. De Anza
Valko Park N.
*if mixed use
60
45
60
45*
60*
Commission m<&ority agrees on 60. Staff: 45
45
60
45
60
60
45
45
45+
45
60
45
60Apple
45
45
45
60
45'
60Apple
30-45
45*
45*
35-45
45
45
45
45
45-60*
Commission majority agrees on 30-35.
Staff: 30 for two-story, 35 for third-story
elements like dormers
Commission majority agrees on 60.
Staff: 45 except 60 for future Valko hotel
(this would be a post-Development
Agreemeµt height, since the Valko
Development Agreement locks in the
previous General Plan until 2006)
Commission agrees on 45
Commission majority agrees on 45
Commission agrees on 45
Commission majority agrees on 45 (with 2
supporting 60 for Apple)
Staff: 45
30
GW
30
LG
30-35
DIRECTION
- -
MM AC
2-3
35
TS
COMMENTS
Heights are maximum and will be
considered along with good design, setbacks
and ..£.ossible mixed use
CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DECISION MATRIX
LAND USF/HOUSING ELEMENTS
PRELIMINARY
Revised 2/22/05
EXHIBIT A
~
,
.......
LU-2 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY NON-RESIDENTIAL City-wide allocation of
AND UNITS ALLOCATION Commercial,
DIVERSITY OF LAND Office/Industrial, Hotel
USE GW MM AC TS Rooms and Residential Units
SPECIAL CENTERS Commissioner Giefer
deferred her preliminary
recommendations, but stated
that she possibly supports
the Administrative Draft,
and is possibly interested in a
city-wide allocation.
Monta Vista ---- 12 12 12
Vallco Park S. 35 35-50 291 35
units
Heart of City 25 25 25 35
Homestead 50 50 35 35
Citv Center 35 35 35 35
N. De Anza 0 0 25 35
Valko Park N. 0 35-50 0 20·
Bubb Road 0 12 12 20
Undesignated
HOT TOPIC
DIRECTION
COMMENTS
'L.
I('
\
-......
LU-3: A low FAR is proposed to
COMMERCIAL FLOOR encourage mixed use. It
AREA RATIO needs to be changed if mixed
use is not allowed.
LU-4: Draft calls for a ten-year
ECONOMIC revenue forecast.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LU-5: Ordinance would require
ONE-PERCENT FOR ART public and private
ORDINANCE development to set aside 1 %
of total project budget for on-
site art.
HOT TOPIC
DIRECTION
3
COMMENTS
.~
\
......
DIRECTION
-
GW LG MM
Hillside Hillside Hillside
Study
G:planninglgenplanlpublic hearing draft/discussion outline matrix 2-14-05
OTHER TOPICS DIRECTION . COMMENTS
OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND
TRAILS
Hillside
Allow
Subdivision
If Ceo OK
HOT TOPIC
SPECIFIC PROPERTIES
USE MAP)
Hillside properties
(LAND
AC
TS
Safety
is of primary
COMMENTS
importance.
4
~
.
........
3-4
~AL
ADEQUATE SITES
FOR HOUSING
EXHIBIT B
Housing
-
conversion of any affordable units to market rate, specifically the 100 unit Sunnyview devel-
opment (affordability subsidies are scheduled to expire in 2004).
4. SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
Some of the households that have special housing needs in Cupertino include homeless,
elderly and disabled households. The City needs to continue its relationship with special
need providers and to support the provision of additional housing opportunities where
feasible.
5. EQUAL ACCESS TO HOUSING
A fundamental right is the ability for all persons to have equal access to housing, regard-
less of factors such as religion, ethnicity, age or sexual orientation. It is important that the
City continue to ensure equal access to housing and to support groups and organizations
that provide fair housing counseling/irúormation services.
Goals, Policies and Programs (2001-2006)
THE FOLWWING PAGES INCLUDE GOAlS, POLIaES AND PROGRAMS
DESIGNED TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS AS IDENTIFIED ABOVE AND IN THE
HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL DOCUMENT.
A
EXPAND THE SUPPLY OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR ALL ECONOMIC
SEGMENTS.
. Policy 3-1: Sufficient Residentially Zoned Land for New Construction Need
Designate sufficient residentially-zoned land at appropriate densities to pro-
vide adequate sites that will meet ABAG' s estimate of Cupertino's new con-
struction need of 2,325 units for 2001-2006. Included with that need are the
following objectives:
Units Affordable to Very Low Income:
Units Affordable to Low Income:
Units Affordable to Moderate Income:
Units Affordable to Above Moderate Income:
TOTAL
378
188
626
1.133
2,325
II
Implementation Program 1: Housing Units by Planning District
units
units
units
units
Units
Encourage residential development in the following plarming districts, as
provided below. Residential development in these planning districts
includesmixed-use, multi-unit residential, and single-family residential at a
density of 15-35+ units per acre. Adequate infrastructure is currentlyavail-
able to all districts.
(Please see map on page 73, which identifies the locations for the proposed units by
Planning District.)
THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
¡-F
Housing
-
-
Time Frame:
2001-2006
Responsible Party:
City of Cupertino, Planning Department
Quantified Objective:
Heart of tl1£ City District
433 UIÙts at 35 UIÙts per Acre (12.5 Acres)
North DeAnza District
150 UIÙts at 35 UIÙts Per Acre (4.25 Acres)
Bubb Planning District
150 UIÙts at 15 UIÙts Per Acre (10 Acres)
Homestead District
0ndesigna~
TOTAL
605 UIÙts at 50 UIÙts Per Acre (12 Acres)
40 Units at 20 UIÙts Per Acre (2 Acres)
1,378 UIÙts
m ImpleJnentation Program 2: Land Use Designations
In order to allow for the number of units as identified in Program #1 (Hous-
ing UIÙts by Planning Districts), some parcels of land in the specified Plan-
ning Districts will need a change in land use designation or zoning. The City
will change land use designations/zoning-tc(reflect at least the density range
of 15-50 units per acre on those parcels during the 2001-2002 update of the
General Plan.
Time Frame:
2001-2002
Responsible Party:
City of Cupertino, Planning Department
Quantified Objective:
North DeAnza District Revise zoning so that all 4.25 acres are zoned
at a minimum of 35 units per acre.
Bubb District: Revise zoning so that all 10 acres are zoned at
a minimum of 15 units per acre.
Homestead District: Revise zoning of 2 acres to 50 units per acre so
that a total of12 acres are zoned at 50 units per
acre.
iii Implementation Program 3: Existing Inventory of Residential Parcels
Include the existing inventory of residentially-zoned parcels that have been
identified as vacant, underdeveloped or infill parcels in addressing the Re-
gional Housing Need.
Time Frame:
~2001:=20Ù6
Responsible Party:
City of Cupertino, Planning Department
THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
3-5
-
1- c¡
3-6
Housing
.-
Quantified Objective:
("""'
439 Units at <15 Units Per Acre, 29 Acres Total
182 U,ts at 15-20 Units Per Acre, 12 Acres Total
.2.§»Í¡its at 20-35+ Urúts Per Acre, 16 Acres Total
. II. . ImþlementationProgram4: Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance
Evaluate and revise, if necessary, the Second Dwelling Urút Ordinance to en-
courage the production of more second units on residential parcels. Evalu-
ate existing parking, square footage minimums and other requirements to
determine whether revisions would encourage the development of more sec-
ond units.
Time Frame:
2001-2002 Evaluate and revise program, if
necessary
2001-2006: Continue to implement program
Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Planning Department
Quantified Objective: 25 Second Urúts Produced, 2001-2006
II Policy 3-2: Identify sites for 500 additional housing units (units in addition to the
2,325 unit Regional Housing NeedA/location) as part of the General Plan Update,
subject to analysis of traffic and other related impacts.
II Implementation Program 5: General Plan Update
During the General Plan Update of 2001-2002, sites will be evaluated to pro-
vide 500 dwelling units, in addition to those identified for the Regional Hous-
ing Need Allocation. Sites will be evaluated based on environmental impacts
and traffic analysis. If these impacts are determined to be minimal, the City
may choose to designate sites for up to 500 housing units. .
Time Frame: 2001-2002
Responsible Party: City of Cupertino, Planning Department
Quantified Objective: 80 Very Low Income Urúts
40 Low Income Urúts
135 Moderate Income Urúts
245 Above-Moderate Income Urúts
500 Total Urúts
THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
I-If)
COMMUNITY DEVEWPMENT
2-17
Commerdal (sq. ft.) Office (sq. ft.) Hotel (rooms) Residential (DU)
2000 Built Bulldout 2000 Built Buildout 2000 Built Buildout 2000 Built Buildout Alternative
Neighborhood
Monta Vista 88,816 99,698 416,557 456,210 - - 760 902 902
Oak Valley - - - . - - 178 178 178
Fairgrove - - - - - - 220 220 220
Other Are~ - - - - - - 17,376 (.}W,:\ ~?1~
Commercial Centers
Heart of the City 1,182,456 1,476,115 510,531 521,987 - - 238 681 500
Vall~ Park South 1,110,700 1.902,546 708,057 1,091,824 - 764 - 125 0
Homestead Road 238,735 193.678 69,550 69,550 126 126 484 977 800
COther Ams ~ 494,576 495.415 268.735 250,604 - - 6 C+o\ r14k
Employment Centers
N DeAnza Blvd. 44.979 5l,372 2,048,021 2,266,206 - - - 2t5 300
City Center 29.358 79,011 1.032,072 1,149,513 - 224 219 713 714
Vallco Park"North 127,806 133,147 2,843,144 3,069,676 315 315 551 .I!J 551
Bubb Road - - 428,645 444.435 - - - 81 81
Citywide 3.317.426 4,431,000 8,325,312 9,320,005 441 1.429 20,032 22,369 22,369
~ Policy 2-20: Diversity of Land Use
Maintain a city structure of Neighbor;
hoods, Commercial areas, Employment
areas and Education! Cultural areas.
Provide sufficient development opportu-
nities for these areas in order to enhance
their distinct character and functions,
while maintaining the desired trans-
portation levels of service.
HOT
LU-2
TOP I C
Strategies:
1. Citywide Development Allocation.
Allocate new development citywide in
accordance with Table 2-A Develop-
ment Allocation.
Table 2-A. Development Allocation.
c
2. Development Criteria. Floor area ratios
for non~residential uses may be exceed,
ed through the development review
process using established criteria for
evaluating projects. Floor area potential
not fully utilized in new development
will be returned to the relevant devel-
opment allocation category.
3. Flexible Allocations. Allow flexibility
among the allocations assigned to each
geographical area. Allocations may be
redistributed from one geographical
area to another if necessary and if no
significant environmental impacts, par-
ticularly traffic, are identified.
o ;I.)
2R)
TASK FORCE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
----~
,~
~
1- / /
EXHIBIT C
5-1
Section 5
Environmental
Resou rces/S ustai nabi I ity
INTRODUCTION
Sustainable planrùng and development accommodate the City's future
changes while recognizing that the community's environmental resources
are fragile, invaluable and interrelated. Sustainable planning integrates and
balances environmental decisions with economic considerations and rec-
ognizes the symbiotic relationship between the natural environment, the
Community and the economy. In the long term, protecting and sustaining
the City's viable ecological communities and environmental resources will
result in the protection of both the human and natural environments.
PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABILlTY
Planrùng for the location of land use activities is one
of the fundamental components of sustainability. Suburban
land use practices isolate housing, retail uses and
employment locations from one another, and scatter low-
density development that becomes solely reliant on the
automobile for access and transportation. This inefficient
and unsustainable growth pattern has resulted in loss of
natural habitat and open space, deteriorating air and water
quality, increased traffic congestion and a loss of a sense of
community. Sustainability requires a change from past
land use planrùng to a system that creates and maintains competent and
efficient community facilities, human scale neighborhoods and a sense of
community while preserving environmental resources.
The Environmental ResourcesjSustainability element contains an in-
ventory of the City's key environmental issues and resources, and it also
includes policies for the efficient use and conservation of these resources,
based on the following principles:
Sustainability Principles
The Environmental ResourcesjSustainability Element and implemen-
tation strategies are based upon the following fundamental principles:
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
5-2
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCESjSUSTAINABILITY
· Linking - the linking of Resource Management and Economic Deter-
minations when evaluating development projects
· ConservationjEfficiency - the protection, intelligent use and reuse of
renewable and nomenewable resources
· Reduction of Waste - reuse, recycling and use reduction
· Resource Management for the benefit of future generations
· PreventionfMitigation of significant environmental impacts
· Restoration of impacted environmental resources
· Innovation in building technologies, including the substitution of ma-
terials
· Community Participation - the comprehensive involvement of City
government, city residents and the private sector
· Education - preparation and dissemination of educational materials
The City's sustainable, environmental resource program is based on
the perception of the community as a holistic system, where people are in-
escapably related to the community's natural resources and other envi-
ronmental conditions. These conditions not OIÙy include topography, air
and water quality, surface drainage, and open space, but all other forms of
life. .
GOAL A
A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FOR THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
Policy 5-1: Principles ofSustaínability
Incorporate the principles of sustainability into Cupertino's plan-
ning and development system.
Strategies
1. Appoint a Task Force or Commission to develop an ap1?ropriate
comprehensive annual Sustainabilitv and Resource Plan for the City.
The mission for the Task Force/Commission would be:
a. write and keep current the armual Tactical Plan and meas-
urement of City-wide programs to help achieve the Environ-
mental Resources and Sustainability section of the General
Plan.
b. Identify and evaluate resources, teclmologies, products and
the life-cycle cost of ownership for each recOlmnended.
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/SUSTAINABILITY
c. Work with City staff to evaluate the financial feasibility of the
recolnrnendations.
LImplementation Programs. Adopt and implement energy policies
and implementation programs that include the City's planning and
regulatory process.
~. City-Wide Inventory. Conduct a City-wide sustainability inventory
in order to identify issues, opportunities and planning alternatives.
4.3. Sustainability Energy and Water Conservation Plan. Prepare and
implement a comprehensive sustainability energy plan as a part of the
City's General Plan. This plan will specifically include recOlllinenda-
tions regarding:
a. Reduction of energy consumption.
b. Reduction of fossil fuels.
c. Use of renewable ener¡::y resources whenever possible.
d. Improve City-wide water usage and conservancy.
e. Reduce water consumption by the City.
f. Promote residential and business water reduction.
The Task Force! Commission will work with Staff to keep the Sustain-
ability Energy and Water Conservation portion of the General Plan cur-
rent and abreast of beneficial cost-effective technologies.
Energy Conservation/Efficiency
Cupertino reliance on the use of non-renewable energy supplies has
serious environmental consequences. For our community to be sustainable,
it must reverse this situation.
The City of Cupertino receives electrical power from Pacific Gas and
Electric (PG&E). PG&E's power is derived from several somces such as
wind turbines, hydroelectric dams and nuclear generation. The Asso-
ciation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) power consortium pro-
vides the City with natural gas. In the State of California and the San
Francisco Bay Area, approximately 95 percent of the residential units
are heated by natural gas, the remainder by electricity and propane.
5-3
Overall energy use in
the Bay Area
Use
Commercial
Residential
Industrial
Transportation
Other
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PU.N
%
7
g;.
.35. '
-31 '
-10
Since the severe energy shortages of the 1970's, which cuhni-
nated in the critical statewide electrical power shortages of 2001,
Californians (and particularly Bay Area residents) have become.
.......-4'
,:....;.'-;..,..,
100
Sources: PG&E, PlalIlIilIg
Resource Associates
5-4
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/SUST AINABILITY
acutely aware of the need to reduce energy demand for both the short and
long term in order to achieve a sustainable future. This was further rein-
forced by the severe blackouts in the Northeast U.S. and Canada in the
summer of 2003. The continuously rising cost of energy production, to-
gether with diminishing fossil fuel sources (non-renew:able resources), has
required public agencies to conserve, efficiently use and search for alterna-
tive energy resources.
PLANNING AND REGULATORY PROCESSES
Urban areas in California, (including Cupertino) contain approxi-
mately 85 percent of the State of Califo~a' s population. These urban
communities are in the best position, through their planning and regula-
tory processes to promote and implement effective energy conserva-
tion/ efficiency sustainability programs. Cupertino has expressed its
commitment to these programs in the following ways:
· Installed lighting and/ or retrofitted energy efficient lights for all street
lights and traffic control lights.
· Retrofitted all overhead lights in City Offices.
· Reduced lighting and equipment use where possible in all City facili-
ties through staff training.
· Acquired several electric vehicles.
· Distributed conservation/ efficiency information to architects, contrac-
tors and the general public.
· Endorsed the "Draft Compact for a Sustainable Bay Area" as pro-
moted by the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development. This
"Compact" constitutes a commitment to take specific steps toward a
sustainable region.
The Land Use Element and the Circulation Element commit to sus-
tainability in the following areas: '
. Land Use Planning and Zoning: Provide energy efficient higher
density housing in proximity to employment centers and trans-
portation corridors and include mixed use development where'
appropriate. (See Section 2 - Land Use)
. Transportation Planning: Consider alternatives to the automobile
such as increased car pooling, flexible work schedules, use of bi-
cycles, pedestrian pathways and telecommuting. Support multi-
modal public transit to reduce congestion, air and water quality
pollution and the significant costs of road construction. Encour-
age reduced street width. Strengthen street tree protection. (See
Section 4 - Circulation)
GOAL B REDUCED USE OF NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/SUSTAINABILITY
5-5
Policy 5-2: Conservation and Efficient Use of Energy Resources
Encourage the maximum feasible conservation and efficient use of
electrical power and natural gas resources for new and existing
residences, businesses, industrial and public uses.
Strategies
1. Alternate Energy Sources. Encourage the use of solar energy and
other alternate, renewable ener¡?;y resources for all new and si¡;nifi-
cantly renovated (Note: Staff and Task Force/Commission to define
meh'ic of "significantlv renovated") private and public buildings.
Ensure that all homes have an acceptable balance of access to the
sun and protection from it. Promote new technologies, such as wa-
terless water heaters~ to effect this change.
2. Comprehensive Energy Management Plan. Prepare and imple-
ment a comprehensive energy management plan for all applicable
public facilities, equipment and procurement and construction prac-
tices.
3. Consistency with State and Federal Regulations: Review and
evaluate applicable City codes, ordinances, and procedures for in-
clusion of local, state and federal policies and standards that pro-
mote the conservation and efficient use of energy and for
consistency with the goal of sustainability. Change those, which
will promote energy efficiency without a punitive effect.
4 Using life cycle cost analysis, identify City assets for replacement
with more energy efficient replacements.
5. Incentive Program. Implement an incentive program to include
such items as reduced permit fees for building projects that exceed
Title 24 requirements. Promote other incentives from the State,
County and Federal Governments for improving energy efficiency
by posting u1.formation regarding u1centive, rebate and tax credit
programs on the City's web site. Let's make learning about this
easy and help those u1terested get started!
6. Solar Access Standards. Ensure compliance with the State of Cali-
fornia Subdivision Map Act solar access standards in order to
maximize natural heating and cooling opportunities for future resi-
dences. Encourage the inclusion of additional shade trees and land-
scaping for energy efficiency.
7. Educational Programs.
""f~""-'I';1'
}i-~~*t
,
.~
Cm OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
5-6
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/SUSTAINABILITY
·
Develop conservation/ efficiency educational programs serving
all utility users.
·
Provide informational materials and participate in energy con-
servation workshops.
Provide educational materials, seminar and staff training on en-
ergy conservation/ efficiency for those who design, build and
manage building facilities, and for those who regulate building
design and construction.
. In partnership with De Anza College develop a "Sustainable Building
Practices" guide for Cupertino residents and businesses. The Guide
should include Information regarding current rebates and subsidies to
make implementing a sustainable building more financially attractive
with references back to the City, State, Federal and other web sites for
up-to-date information.
·
. Provide education materials, seminars and a certification program for
contractors and architects who have participated in "Sustainable
Building" courses. Many of the curriculums are currently available at
De Anza College. As an incentive for participating the "Sustainable
Building" program the City will maintain a "Sustainable
Builder/Developer" page on their current City website. This page
will not be an endorsement of the individual or company listed, but a
resource center for the community.
.
Establish and maintain an Energy Information Center or Kiosk at City
Hall where information concerning energy issues, building standards,
recycling and assistance is available.
.
Require residents and business that are remodeling to review and sign as
acknowledgment that they have reviewed the "Sustainable Building
Practices" guide prior to permits being issued.
7. rgy Cogeneration Systems. Encotirage the use of eriergy cogeneration .
sy tems through the provision of an awareness program targeting the larger
co ercial and industrial users and public facilities.
8. ation of Building Design: Ensure designer, developers, applicants and
bu ders meet California Title 24 Energy Efficient Building Standards and
en ourage architects, building designers and contractors to exceed "Title 24"
re uirements for new projects through the provision of incentives. Encourage
ei er passive solar heating and or dark plaster interior with a cover for
s' . g pools, cabanas and other related accessory uses where solar access
is available. Encourage the use of alternative renewable sources where
fer"" rnd devclop ~gy ,udi'" m rnbv=ti= pro,,-
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/SUSTAINABILITY
5-7
9. Use of Discretionary Development' Permits (Use Pennits): Reqillre, as
conditions of approval for new and renovated projects, the provision of
energy conservation/ efficiency applications.
10. Energy Efficient Transportation Modes. Encourage alternative, energy
efficient transportation modes such as "clean" multi-modal public transit, car
and vanpooling, flexible work hours, and pedestrian and bicycle paths.
Green Buildings
The planning, construction and maintenance of buildings has an extraordi-
nary effect on environmental resources. Buildings consume significant quantities of
water, wood and energy. Nationally, buildings consume one-third of all the energy
and two-thirds of the electricity. 50% of home energy consumed is used for heating
and cooJing. In addition, buildings are a significant source of interior and exterior
urban air quality problems and generate large quantities of waste and affect climate
change.
A "green" building is one that is designed, constructed, renovated and
maintained in an ecological and resource efficient manner. Green buildings
provide opportunities not only for conservation and efficient resource use,
but also'to create healthier structures and long term, cost savings.
The essential components of a green building design and planning process
include:
· Location - in proximity to public transit, shopping and recreational
facilities
· Site Planning - solar orientation, protection of existing vegetation and
use of ecologically appropriate landscaping
· Energy Efficiency - Exceeding State, Title 24 energy requirements, see
Energy section below; architectural design to mitigate heating, cooling
and lighting loads
· Material Efficiency - selection, substitution and reuse of sustainable
construction materials
· Water Efficiency - employ water saving design techniques and de-
vices
GOAL C
ENERGY CONSERVING AND EFFICIENT BUILDINGS
Policy 5-3: Green Building Design
Encourage the design and construction of energy and resource con-
serving/ efficient building (Green Building Design).
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
5-8
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/SUSTAlNABILITY
Strategies
1. "Green Building" Evaluation Program. Prepare and implement a
"Green Building" evaluation for all private and public projects. In-
clude an "Energy Efficient Design and Landscaping Manual" for
use by designers, contractors and owners. (See Green Building sec-
tion above). Evaluation software is available on the State Energy
Conunissions web site.
2. Building energy audits. Participate in and encourage building en-
ergy audits, where feasible, for commercial, industrial and city fa-
cilities and convey to the business and industrial communities that
energy conservation/ efficiency is, in the long term, economically
beneficial. PG&E also offers energY evaluation tools and services
free of charge.
3. "Green Buildings" Evaluation Guide. Prepare a "Green Buildings"
evaluation guide based upon the above listed "essential compo-
nents" for use by the city staff when reviewing projects.
4. Staff Training. Train appropriate staff in the design principles,
costs and benefits of energy conservation/ efficient buildings and
landscape design.
L"Green Buildings" Informational Seminars. Conduct and/or par-
ticipate in "Green Buildings" informational seminars and workshops
to include people involved in the design and construction industry,
land development, real estate sales, lending institutions, landscaping
and design. the building maintenance industry and prospective pro-
ject applicants. We recommend modeling this program after the
CERT prolp'am.
4. Public Communication: Become a regular feature article in the Cu-
pertino Scene. do media outreach to the Courier and the Guide (ST
Mercury) tape the Sustainable Building and other conservation
courses. or seminars and broadcast them on the City Chalmèl as
well, as make them available at the Library.
Air Quality
Air quality remains a serious health hazard for residents in the Bay
Area Air Basin. Even after three decades of efforts to cleanse the air, air
pollution still causes a significant amount of discomfort, illness and some-
times death in the region. Particularly vulnerable are children, the elderly
and people with heart or lung problems. Sometimes healthy adults may
experience breathing problems during periods of intense outdoor exercise.
Air pollutants may also have an adverse effect on vegetation, animals and
property. In addition, national or world-wide pollution issues, the deple-
tion of the ozone layer and world-wide climatic changes pose serious chal-
lenges for communities seeking a sustainable future.
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/SUSTAINABIUTY
5-9
Air pollution potential is based upon the tendency for high pollutant
concentrations to develop at any given location. This potential is depend-
ent upon the amount of pollutants eIrÙtted into the air and the local atmos-
phere's ability to transport and dilute that pollutant. The County's
topography, prevailing wind pattern and frequent air inversions combine
to catch and hold the pollutants that the urban area releases daily into the
au. Air pollution is composed of a vast assortment of gases and particles
that can be grouped in three categories: particulate matter, carbon monox-
ide and ozone. A large proportion of air pollution in Santa Oara County is
automobile related.
The existing development patterns, countywide, contribute to the fur-
ther deterioration of au quality. For example, the majority of affordable
housing for low to moderate employees is outside of the County or in ad-
joining cities. This requues employees to commute long distances daily to
and from work which in turn increases au pollution countywide. Also,
much of the Citywide residential areas are separated from commercial
uses, which in turn requues residents to drive vehicles to complete errands.
This tends to increase au pollution within the community. Land use plan-
ning is beginning to change with these considerations in mind.
Much progress has been made in monitoring and reducing fixed or
"point sources" of pollution, such as factories and power plants. Pollution
from "non-point" or mobile sources, such as motor vehicles, private prop-
erty, etc., continues to prove an illusive challenge. As Santa Oara County
continues to be the population and employment growth center of the re-
gion, residents, employers and municipalities must take responsibility for
the impacts of air pollution on the quality of life. The policies and strategies
identified in the "Green Building" and "Energy" portions of this General
Plan and those listed below are designed to improve air quality to a
healthy and sustainable level.
REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL PLANNING
Air quality standards are established by both th~ State Air Resources
Board and the Federal Envuonmental Protection Agency air quality man-
agement agencies. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has the
responsibility to create compliance strategies, and monitor and enforce
State and Federal standards in the nine county Bay Area District. Bay Area
air quality has improved significantly over the past 20 years of air quality
planning and control efforts, in spite of substantial increases in population,
traffic and industrialization. The last full Au Quality Plan was adopted in
1991 and there have been three updates since, including the last in Decem-
ber 2000, to assess compliance and adopt needed measures to meet those
standards that are still not met in the Bay Area. In 2002, the District was
designated as non-compliant only for State and Federal ozone standards
and for State particulate standards. Local government agencies are ex-
pected to participate in adopting policies to support District, State and Fed-
eral air quality management planning.
t;,.,,·_~,,··
'<.',"~"'~."".'
~r .,-.", ' .
~ ."
\
CITYOFCUPERTINOD~GENERALPLAN
5-10
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCESjSUST AINABILITY
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY
While air quality is often regarded as a regional or state problem, it is
important for local land use and growth decisions to support improve-
ments in air quality. The land use, circulation, energy and environmental
policies that comprise this General Plan will contribute to meeting
BAAQMD and ARB Air Quality improvement plans.
GOAL D
HEALTHY AIR QUALITY LEVELS FOR THE CITIZENS OF
CUPERTINO UTILIZING LOCAL PLANNING EFFORTS
Policy 5-4: Air Pollution Effects of New Development
Minimize the air quality impacts of new development projects.
Strategies
1. Toxic Air Contaminants. Review projects for potential generation
of toxic air contaminants at the time of approval and confer with
BAAQMD on controls needed if impacts aIe uncertain.
2. Dust Control. Require water application to non-polluting dust con-
trol measures during demolition and the duration of the construc-
tion period.
3. Planning Decisions. Assess the potential for air pollution effects of
future land use and transportation planning, and ensure that plan-
ning decisions support regional goals of improving air quality.
Policy 5-5: Air Pollution Effects of Existing Development
Minimize the air quality impacts of existing development.
Strategies
1. Public Education Program. Establish a Citywide public education
program regarding the implications of the Clean Air Act and pro-
vide information on ways to reduce and control emissions; provide
information about carpooling and restricting physical activities on
"SpaIe the Air" high-pollution days.
2. Home Occupations. Expand the allowable home occupations in
residentially zoned properties to reduce the need to commute to
work.
3. Tree Planting. Increase planting of trees on City property and en-
courage the practice on private property.
4. Fuel-efficient Vehicles. Maintain City use of fuel-efficient and low
polluting vehicles.
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCESjSUSTAINABILITY
5-11
5. Work with County to monitor and influence irrlprovement of emis-
sions and dust from the Hanson and Stevens Creek Ouarrvies on the
West end of the City.
Policy 5-6: Walking, Jogging and Bicycling
Encourage walking, jogging and bicycling instead of driving in the
City.
SEE POLICY 4-3 IN mE
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Policy 5-7: Use of Open Fires and Fireplaces
Discourage high pollution fireplace use.
Strategies
1. BAAQMD Literature. Make available BAAQMD literature on re-
ducing pollution from fireplace use.
2. Installation of New Fireplaces. Prohibit the use of wood-burning
fireplaces in new construction.
Wildlife and Vegetation
Biodiversity, which includes a diversity of plants and animals found
in nature, provides the foundation for the ecosystems that are required to
sustain life. The City's current and continued health and prosperity de-
pends, in part, on the ability of its natural resources to renew themselves.
Cupertino's wildlife and natural vegetation resources are concentrated
in the relatively undeveloped western foothills and mountains and along
Stevens Creek, not on the valley floor. Urbanization of the valley floor has
rendered this environment ill-suited to the needs of wildlife and native
plants. Most of the native vegetation was removed by historic agricultural
activities and the introduction of non-native grasses and crops. Native
vegetation was further reduced by the more recent construction of homes,
businesses, industries and infrastructure that supports the community. Fire
also threatens vegetation and the animals that depend on it for food and
shelter. The loss of vegetation also meant a concomitant loss of wildlife
habitat that provided food, cover and shelter for numerous wildlife species.
STREAMSIDES
Riparian vegetation grows along stream courses where there is fertile
soil and ample water. It often appears as a distinct band of vegetation
when contrasted against other uses. Such vegetation can be found along
Stevens Creek, Permanente Creek, Regnart Creek, Heney Creek and a por-
tion of Calabazas Creek. Common plants include: willow, California buck-
eye, Coast live oak, coyote brush, poison oak and California blackberry.
Riparian habitats are considered among the most valuable habitats of wild-
life because of the presence of water, lush vegetation and high insect popu-
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
5-12
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/SUSTAINABlLITY
lations. Less disturbed riparian areas support a wide variety of wildlife,
including amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal species.
GRASSLANDS
Grassland habitats occur on the lower slopes of the western foothills
and at scattered locations at higher elevations in the Montebello Ridge sys-
tem. Much of these areas were formerly used for pasture and are largely
composed of non-native grasses. Plant species occurring in this habitat in-
clude wild oat, clover, rye grass and vetch. During the spring season, dis-
plays of wildflowers are expected which may include California poppy,
plantago and owl clover.
Reptile and mammal species adapted to dry conditions are common in
this habitat. They include the western fence lizard, western rattlesnake and
the common king snake. Manunals include a variety of burrowing rodents,
such as meadow mice and California ground squirrel.
BRUSH LANDS
Brushlands are a scrubby, dense vegetation type that often integrates
with woodland habitat. This vegetation is often found on dry, rocky, steep
slopes. Dominant plant species include coyote brush, poison oak, Califor-
nia sage and ceanothus. Mule deer, brush rabbit, bobcat and coyote utilize
brushlands as part of a larger home range.
FOOTHILL WOODLANDS AND FORESTS
Characteristic of the woodland vegetation are scattered oak trees with
an undergrowth in some areas of plants and low shrubs. Higher elevations
in the Montebello Foothills include mixed hardwood trees and evergreen,
including redwoods. Woodlands benefit wildlife as.a food source, and as
shelter, nesting or cover; they help control erosion from foothill drainage
basins; they reduce wind speeds, increasing the oxygen in the atmosphere
and neutralizing certain pollutants.
Woodlands provide visual relief from the urbanized valley floor. The..
Montebello Ridge system's extensive tree cover gives seasonal color varia-
tion, variety of shape and definition of hillside contours. Insect or seed eat-
ing birds and mammals are common in the woodlands and are preyed
upon by raptors and owls that also inhabit these areas. The larger mam-
mals, deer coyote, etc., utilize these areas as well.
GOAL E
PROTECTION OF SPECIAL AREAS OF NATURAL VEGETATION
AND WILDLIFE HABITATION AS INTEGRAL PARTS OF THE
SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT.
Policy 5-8: Public Project Landscaping
Enc-ourage public and quasi-public agencies to landscape their city
area projects near native vegetation with appropriate native plants
and draought tolerant non-invasive non-native plants.
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCESjSUST AINABILITY
5-13
Strategy
Development Plans. Review development plans for opportunities
for use of native plants and drought tolerant non-invasive non-
native plants. .
Policy 5-9: Development Near Sensitive Areas
Encourage the clustering of new development away from sensitive
areas such as riparian corridors, wildlife habitat and corridors, pub-
lic open space preserves and ridgelines. New developments in
these areas must have a harmonious landscaping plans approved
prior to development.
Strategy
Riparian Corridor Protection. Require riparian corridor protection
through a riparian corridor ordinance and through the develop-
ment approval process.
Policy 5-10: Landscaping Near Natural Vegetation
Emphasize drought tolerant and pesticide-resistant native and non-
invasive non-native drought tolerant plants and ground covers
when landscaping properties near natural vegetation, particularly
for control of erosion from disturbance to the natural terrain.
Policy 5-11: Natural Area Protection
Preserve and enhance the existing natural vegetation, landscape
features and open space when new development is proposed.
Strategy
Native Plants. Rcquirc Encourage drought tolerant native and
drought tolerant non-invasive non-native plants and trees, and
minimize lawn area in the hillsides.
Policy 5-12: Hillside Property Fencing
Confine fencing on hillside property to the area around a buildin,g,
rather than around an entire site, to allow for migration of wild
animals.
Policy 5-13: Recreation in Natural Areas
Limit recreation in natural areas to activities compatible with pre-
serving natural vegetation, such as hiking, horseback riding moun-
tain biking and camping.
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
5-14
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCESjSUSTAINABILITY
Policy 5-14: Recreatiolt and Wildlife Trails
Provide open space linkages within and between properties for
both recreational and wildlife activities, most specifically for the
benefit of wildlife that is threatened, endangered or designated as
species of special concern.
Strategy
Require identification of creeks and water courses on site plans and
require that they be protected from adjacent development. State
that trail easements for trail linkages may be required if analysis de-
termines that they are needed.
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/SUST AINABILITY
5-15
(insert Figure 5-A Vegetation here)
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
5-16
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/SUSTAINABILITY
(back of Figure 5-A)
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCESjSUSTAINABILITY
5-17
Mineral Resources
Longstanding extraction of mineral resources in the Cupertino area
has provided valuable construction materials to the region. At the same
time, the air quality, noise and traffic impacts on the community created by
extraction activities quarries need to be addressed.
The State of California, recognizing the value of preserving the State's
mineral deposits, in order to achieve a sustainable future, enacted the Sur-
face MinIDg and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA). The objective of
SMARA is to assist local governments in conserving mineral deposits for
future use. These mineral resource areas are shown in Figure 5-B. This map
identifies natural resource areas and requires that jurisdictions recognize
them and emphasize conservation and development of these areas.
There are mineral resource areas in the City's boundary agreementar-
eas and in the City limits. Within Cupertino's boundary agreement areas
there are two quarries, Hanson Permanente and Stevens Creek, which have
been designated by the State as having mineral deposits of regional or state
signilicance. Since the quarries are in the unincorporated area, Santa Oara
County has regulatory jurisdiction. The County's mineral resource policies
are directed toward preserving existing resource areas and, where feasible,
designating new areas and expanding existing sites.
Within Cupertino's City limits there are classified mineral resource ar-
eas for which the State requires policies supporting preservation and ex-
traction. Most of the areas are already developed into residential and other
uses. One area, the "Gravel Pit" is considered depleted. These areas, there-
fore, would not benefit from conservation. The areas that would benefit
from conservation are outside the City limits.
Cupertino's proposed policies recognize the existence and potential of
the identified mineral resource areas. However, proposed policies reflect
an underlying assumption the quarries should be limited to their existing
operations in terms of noise and traffic. For many years, Cupertino resi-
dents have expressed concern about quarry pollution, noise and traffic.
Cupertino officials have stated at public hearings that the operation con-
trols and limits should be set. New areas could be accessed as long as cur-
rent noise and traffic levels are not exceeded and environmental concerns
are met.
GOAL F
MINERAL RESOURCE AREAS THAT MINIMIZE COMMUNITY
IMPACTS AND IDENTIFY FUTURE USES
Policy 5-15: Mineral Resource Areas
Consider new mineral resource areas within Cupertino's sphere of
influence, but the cumulative impact of existing and proposed ac-
tivity should not exceed present operations in terms of noise and
traffic. Work with Santa Oara County to assure that mining opera-
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
5-18
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCESjSUSTAINABILITY
tions outside the City limits are consistent with the City's General
Plan, that restoration plans are adequate, and that mining activity is
not extended into undisturbed lands without adequate documenta-
tion of economic purpose and environmental impacts and mitiga-
tions.
Strategies
1. Traffic and Noise Studies. Perform traffic and noise studies if ap-
plications for increased mineral extraction activities are proposed.
2. Joint Study Process. Establish a joint study process in the sphere of
influence and boundary agreement areas with Santa Oara County
to reach agreement on future land uses and mi11,eral extraction ac-
tivities.
Policy 5-16: Mineral Extraction Controls
Control scenic restoration and noise pollution as well as air and wa-
ter pollution in mineral extraction quarrying, processing and trans-
portation
Policy 5-17: Incompatible Land Uses
Conserve mineral resource areas outside the City.
Strategy
New Development. When new development is proposed, do not
allow incompatible land uses in and around identified mineral re-
source areas. Uses considered incompatible are high density resi-
dential, low density residential with high unit value, public
facilities and industrial and commercial uses with intensive im-
pacts.
Policy 5-18: Recreation at Old Quarries
Consider the desirability of designating abandoned quarries for
passive recreation to rehabilitate the land.
Water Resources
The City's sustainable future is, in part, dependent upon an adequate
supply of clean water as well as the effective management of natural wa-
tershed resources. In addition to fundamental health and sanitation, an
adequate potable water supply provides significant public and private
benefits such as irrigation, ecological habitat, recreation opportunities and
aesthetics. .
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL REsOURCES/SUST AINABILITY
5-19
In recent years water management emphasis has shifted away from
supply side efforts such as the creation of dams and reservoirs to water
conserving and efficiency technologies used in planning, design and con-
struction of sites, buildings and land uses.
(insert Figure 5-B Mineral Resources here)
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
5-20
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/SUSTAINABILITY
PRESERVATION OF WATERSHEDS
The Cupertino planning area has a very productive watershed lands,
with abundant vegetation and heavy rainfall. This watershed is important
to the City, the county and the region as surface runoff flows into the
stream corridors and storm drain systems and eventually terminates at the
wildlife refuges and environmentally sensitive areas of the southern por-
tion of San Francisto Bay. It is, therefore, crucial that the City's watershed,
including stream corridors, be protected from pollutants, siltation, sedi-
mentation erosion and loss of vegetation.
GOAL G
PROTECTION AND EFFICIENT USE OF WATER RESOURCES
Policy 5-19: Natural Water Bodies and Drainage Systems
Require that site design respect the natural topography and drain-
ages to the extent practicable to reduce the amount of grading nec-
essary and limit disturbance to natural water bodies and natural
drainage systems caused by development including roads, high-
ways, and bridges.
Policy 5-20: Reduction of Impervious Surfaces
~Minimize storm water flow and erosion impacts resulting from de-
velopment.
.
Chan¡;e City codes,-€t&--to include a formula re¡;ulatin¡; how much
paved surface is allowable on each lot. This would include driveways
and patios installed at the time of buildin¡; or remodelin¡;.
.
Encoura¡;e the use of non impervious materials for walkways drive-
ways ,-eæ... If used in a City or quasi-public area, mobility and access
for handicapped should always take precedent.
Strategy
Minimize impervious surface areas, minimizing directly-connected
impervious surfaces, maximizing onsite infiltration and using on-
site retaining facilities.
Encoura¡;e volunteer organizations to help restore and clean tl1e
creek beds. (Note: We'd need an organization like Parks and Rec or
the Citv Arborist or other City Staff member to provide facilitation,
set priorities. etc...)
Policy 5-21: Pollution and Flow Impacts
Prior to making land use decisions, estimate increases in pollutant
loads and flows resulting from projected future development.
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCESjSUSTAINABILITY
5-21
Strategy
Best Management Practices. Require incorporation of structural
and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to mitigate
the projected increases in pollutant loads and flows.
Policy 5-22: Compact Development Away from Sensitive Areas
Where such measures do not conflict with other municipal pur-
poses or goals, encourage, via zoning ordinances, compact devel-
opment located away from creeks, wetlands, and other sensitive
areas.
Policy 5-23: Conformance with Watershed-Based Planning and Zoning
Encourage development projects to follow watershed-based plan-
ning and zoning by examining the project in the context of the en-
tire watershed area.
GROUND WATER RECHARGE FACILITIES
The Santa Clara County groundwater basin is the largest water supply
in Santa Clara County. It has an estimated capacity of 1,770,000 acre feet,
compared to reservoir capacity of only 160,000 acre feet. The Santa Clara
Valley Water District prevents an excessive amount of water from being
drawn from wells by placing recharge sites (percolation ponds) throughout
the valley where the geological composition of the soil is suitable. Two of
these sites are located in Cupertino.
Encourage the research of other water
sources, including water reclamation.
I;...
.:"';:., ",'
Sonia Clara Val!èy ,
Wo¡., Dislrict¡\t&4;;",
Policy 5-24: Ground Water Recharge Sites
Support the Santa Clara Valley Water
District to find and develop
groundwater recharge sites within
Cupertino's planning area and
provide for public recreation at the
sites where possible.
Policy 5-25: Other Water Sources
Policy 5-26: Industrial Water Recycling
Encourage industrial projects,
especially at the building permit approval stage, to have long-term
conservation measures including recycling equipment for manufac-
turing and pooling water supplies in the plant. Work with the Cu-
pertino Sanitary District to carry out this policy.
!¥tri, "~~;~';::--'-::<~-:;,.r;,,--é·'~7~::::s-~--~ .
.. ~~~tw;",.",,,,,,,",,,.=,;~-..t"'!!?f:";';;':~~~~1.~¡'t!;t!"'"
. ~~j. ~,,¡-:,~.t',;.;.:¡.~.:;;-;.,;;J;.f "::i';.~,;g;-,;;;:',~";~,¡,.Ri~~.'i:4.
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
5-22
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/SUST AINABILITY
Policy 5-27: Natural Water Courses
Retain and restore creek beds, riparian corridors, watercourses and
associated vegetation in their natural state to protect wildlife habitat
and recreation potential and assist groundwater percolation. En-
courage land acquisition or dedication of such areas.
Strategy
Santa Clara Valley Water District. Work with the Santa Clara Val-
ley Water District and other relevant regional agencies to enhance
riparian corridors and provide adequate flood control by use of
flow increase mitigation measures.
OTHER WATER RESOURCES
Cupertino has two major water suppliers: the California Water Com-
pany and the San Jose Water Company.
Water comes from two main sources: wells fed by groundwater, and
imported water from the Rinconada Treatment Plant. Cupertino receives
approximately 1.7 million gallon a day from the underground sources and
about 4.5 million gallons a day from the Rinconada plant. Stevens Creek
Reservoir yields about 2,500 acre feet per year to the seasonal run-off from
groundwater recharge. The Santa Clara Valley Water District projected the
total demand for Cupertino at about 6.85 million gallons a day, which can
be reduced through conservation. Cupertino residents consume approxi-
mately 131.7 gallons on water per day (6.85 MM gallons per day /52,000
residents) which compares favorable to the Bay Area average of 161.2 gal-
lons per day (Bay Area Water User Associations). However this does not
mean further conservation is not necessary.
URBAN CONSERVATION
Climatic conditions of the region vary from periods of relatively dry
seasons to seasons of heavy rainfall. In recent times, the region has experi-
enced periods of drought in the mid-1970sand the late 1980s. Given the
cyclical nature of the climatic conditions, it may be assumed that the region
will experience additional periods of drought in the future.
During these past periods of drought, the two water companies within
the boundaries of the City imposed water restrictions on their customers in
response to the Santa Clara Valley Water District's policy to reduce overall
water usage by 25% during the months of high water usage. The policy is
periodically reviewed based upon water reserves, water usage and rainfall
amounts. Ground water pumping was also restricted during drought peri-
ods because over-pumping lowered the water table and ground subsidence
occurred throughout the Valley. The Santa Clara Valley Water District does
not have sufficient allocation from the California Water Project nor the
Federal Water Project, so water conservation is of great economic, social
and environmental importance.
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/SUSTAINABILITY
5-23
Citywide, the majority of the water connections and usage is residen-
tial. Therefore, the burden of water conservation falls largely on residential
users. Even though the number of industrial connections may be less than
residential, consumption is high per connection and conservation measures
are still warranted.
The Santa Clara V alley Water District indicates it has the ability to
meet the long-term water needs of Cupertino water retailers. The District
Water Supply Master Plan has planned for growth, based upon the maxi-
mum growth potential of all municipalities in the District, which does not
exceed ABAG's projections.
In the 2001 session, the State Legislature and Governor enacted Senate
Bills 221 and 610, which require that projects should not be planned or ap-
proved without access to a reliable and sustainable water source. SB 610
requires that Urban Water management Plans must be prepared and/or
expanded to include supply and demand, conservation, drought contin-
gencies and sustainable sources; also, water supply information must be
incorporated into any environmental evaluation required pursuant to The
California Environmental Quality Act for certain projects.
Policy 5-28: Interagency Coordination
Actively pursue interagency coordination for regional water supply
problem solving.
Policy 5-29: Local Conservation Policies Similar to Region-wide Policies
Maintain citywide efforts of water conservation similar to those be-
ing conducted on a regional scale. Many of these conservation ef-
forts are outlined in the Santa Oara Valley Water District Drought
Plan and Countywide Water Use Reduction program.
Policy 5-30: Public Information Effort
Provide the public information regarding water conserva-
tion/ efficiency techniques including how paving and other imper-
vious surfaces impact runoff.
Strategy
Consider sending regular notices to households and businesses on
water prohibitions, water allocations and conservation tips. Become
a regularly featured article in the Cupertino Scene, Courier and
Guide. Provide conservation videotapes on the City's government
channel.
Include Water-wise demonstration gardens in eaEft-some parks
where feasible as they are relandscaped or improved using draught
tolerant native and non-invasive non-native plants.
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
5-24
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCESjSUSTAINABILITY
Work with the County Master Gardeners to identify water-wise
plant materials and irrigation methods for use in public and private
areas. This information should be posted on the Sustainable por-
tion of the City's web site in included in Cupertino Scene Sustain-
able colurrm.
Policy 5-31: Excessive Water Use
Prohibit excessive water uses throughout the City.
Strategies:
1. Landscaping Plans. Encourage water-efficient landscaping plans as
part of the development review process.
2. Water Conservation Programs. Undertake programs for long-term
water conservation at City Buildings, including installation of low
flow toilets and showers, installation of automatic shut off valves in
lavatories and sinks and water efficient outdoor irrigation.
SEE Mu,
CHAPrEJ
URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION
Urban runoff pollution is caused by the accumulated debris and
chemicals on streets and pavements that are carried by water runoff into
the storm drain system and eventually into San Francisco Bay. Unlike pol-
lutants that come from a point source, such as sewer pipe, urban runoff
pollutants are washed from streets, parking lots, neighborhoods, construc-
tion sites and other exposed surfaces throughout the City.
While urban runoff pollutants come from a variety of sources, many
of them are familiar to residents because they originate from the home and
automobile. They include detergents, paint products, pet wastes, garden
pesticides, fertilizers, eroded soils, motor oil and car exhaust. Since the
storm drains are separate from the sanitary sewers, pollutants carried by
water runoff into the storm drain are not treated and flow directly into the
creeks and streams that feed San Francisco Bay.
Previously, it was widely believed that wastewater treatment plants
industries and other sources were the main contributors of contaminants to
the Bay. Today, urban runoff is recognized as a significant contributor to
Bay pollution. The concentrations of pollutants can have deleterious effects
on aquatic wildlife, which include the impairment of growth, reproduction
and overall health of sediment-dwelling organisms, fish and other wildlife.
Some toxic substances accumulated by aquatic organisms enter the food
chain when consumed by larger fish, birds or humans.
GOVERNMENT ACTION
To comply with an National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Municipal Storm Water permit, enforced by the San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, the 15 local municipalities
formed the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
(SCVURPPP). The SCVURPPP works with the participating agencies and
the Regional Board to Develop· feasible solutions to controlling urban run-
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/SUST AINABILITY
5-25
off quality. In addition, Cupertino is required to prepare a city-specific Ur-
ban Runoff Management Plan. This plan identifies the strategies, tasks and
schedules needed to implement a wide array of pollution control measures.
Initially, many of the urban runoff pollution control measures cen-
tered on education and eliminating illegal discharges. As the public has
become more aware of the urban runoff problem and illegal discharges
elimination, the focus has shifted to controlling the impacts of new and re-
development. .
GOAL H
IMPROVED QUALITY OF STORM WATER RUNOFF
Policy 5-32: Urban Runoff Pollution Prevrntion Program
Support and participate in the Santa Oara Valley Urban Runoff Pol-
lution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) in order to work coopera-
tively with other cities to improve the quality of storm water runoff
discharge into San Francisco Bay.
Policy 5-33: Illicit Discharge into Storm Drains and Waterways
Prohibit the discharge of pollutants and the illicit dumping of
wastes into the storm drains, creeks and waterways.
Policy 5-34: Storm Water Runoff
Encourage the reduction of impervious surface areas and investi-
gate opportunities to retain or detain storm runoff on new devel-
opment.
Policy 5-35: Developmrnt on Septic Systems
Do not pemùt urban development to occur in areas not served by a
sanitary sewer system, except in the preViously approved Regnart
Canyon development.
Policy 5-36: Mitigation for Potrntial Storm Water Impacts
Require mitigation measures for potential storm water pollutant
impacts for projects subject to environmental reView.
Policy 5-37: Pest-Resistant Landscaping and Design Features
The City will encourage the consideration of pest-resistant land-
scaping and design features, and the incorporation of storm water
detention and retention techniques in the design and landscaping of
proposed development projects
The City will reduce runoff from the use of pesticides and chemical
fertilizers from public and quasi-public land. by employing com-
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFf GENERAL PLAN:
5-26
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCESjSUSTAINABILITY
panion planting techniques, using pesticides such as insecticidal
soaps and oils, mulching, release of beneficial insects, etc.. .as ap-
propriate.
SOLID WASTE
In recognition of the concerns expressed regarding the diminishing
landfill capacity and the scarcity of potential landfill sites to meet the fu-
ture solid waste disposal needs, the State Legislature passed AB 939, which
required that cities reduce the amount of waste going to landfill sites. The
State mandated requirement was a two step process: a twenty-five (25) per-
cent reduction by 1995 and a second twenty-five (25) percent reduction by
2000 for a total reduction of fifty (50) percent. The City has now reduced
the solid waste tonnage disposal to comply with the State mandated re-
quirements.
The Los Altos Garbage Company provides garbage pickup and recy-
cling services to the City of Cupertino. The Cupertino residents and indus-
tries dispose of approximately 38,000 tons of garbage annually. Residential
land uses account for 22% of the total tonnage; commercial and industrial
land uses account for 40%; debris boxes (construction materials) account
for 22%; while self- haul accounts for 16% of the total annual tonnage.
Concerns regarding the lack of potential landfill sites to meet future
needs for solid waste disposal and growing recognition of the environ-'
mental impacts associated with landfill usage prompted Cupertino to ex-
plore potential solutions to the solid waste disposal problem. To meet its
future solid waste disposal needs, the City has executed a contract with
Browning and Ferris that provides landfill capacity at Newby Island in
Milpitas. The term of the agreement is 35 years and ends in 2023, or at the
time the specified tonnage allocated (2,050,000 tons) is reached.
GOAL I
A SOLID WASTE STREAM REDUCTION PROGRAM THAT
MEETS OR EXCeEDS STATE REQUIREMENTS
The City is beginning to explore the possibility of expanding its recy~
cling programs to include food waste (to be composted) and construction
and demolition waste (to be recycled or reused). In addition, the City is in-
vestigating the available options for recycling or disposal of electronic
waste. Some of the current options have been shown to be unacceptable for
environmental reasons. The City will continue to work to determine the
best options for its residents and businesses.
Policy 5-38: CommerciaVIndustrial Recycling
Expand existing commercial and industrial recycling programs to
meet and surpass AB939 waste stream reduction goals.
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCESjSUSTAINABIUTY
5-27
Strategy
Increase Recycling. Request that all commercial and industrial uses
increase their recycling efforts to help the city achieve its recycling
goals.
Policy 5-39: Residential Recycling
Streamline the residential curbside recycling
program in the next decade: All city-wide
residential zoning districts should be in-
cluded in the curbside recycling program.
,æ Strategy
[
lÞ Coordination with Los Altos Garbage
. . t9' Company. Work closely with the Los Altos
.. .-,-- Garbage Company to develop and implement
efficient and effective recycling methods.
Continue/make permanent the e-waste recycling program.
Expand Curbside Recvclin¡; of yard waste. Include vegetable; fruit
and other appropriate food items, as well as, recycling of non-
reusable batteries as the City of Palo Alto does.
Policy 5-40: On-site Garbage Area Dedication
Modify existing, and require for new developments, on-site waste
facility requirements for all multi-family residential, commercial
and industrial land uses to have 50% of their garbage area dedi-
cated to recycling and no more than 50% garbage.
Strategy
Ordinance Revisions. Revise existing ordinances relative to on-site
waste facility requirements for all multi-family residential, com-
mercial and industrial zoning districts to require that a minimum of
50% of garbage area be dedicated to recycling.
Policy 5-41: Public Education
Promote the existing public education program regarding the re-
duction of solid waste disposal and recycling.
Strategy
Recycling Program Information. Use the local television channel,
the Cupertino Scene, the Internet and other available media to pro-
vide information to the residents about the objectives of the City's
recycling program.
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
5-28
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCESjSUSTAINABILITY
Policy 5-42: City Recycling
Encourage City staff to recycle at all City facilities.
Strategy
Recycling Opportunities. Provide collection bins and increase the
number of existing recycling bins at strategically located areas to fa-
cilitate disposal of recyclable materials including all City parks.
Work with CUSD, FUSD and De Anza College. Parh1er with
Schools/institutions in Cupertino to insure that they understand
and are adhering to the City's recycling goals and providing ade-
guate recycling opportunities to staff and students.
Policy 5-43: Re-distribution or Reusable Materials
Through public education, encourage residents and businesses to
re-distribute reusable materials, e.g., garage sales, materials ex-
change.
Strategies
1. Dissemination of Recycling Information. Disseminate information
to both businesses and residents regarding the benefits of recycling
and further reducing the solid waste stream.
2. Use of the Internet. Set up a web site for the benefit of the public
. where the availability of recyclable materials can be posted and ex-
changes can be conducted.
Policy 5-44; Reuse of Building Materials
Encourage the recycling and reuse of building materials, including
recycling materials generated by the demolition and remodeling of
buildings.· ..
Strategies:
1. Post Demolition and Remodeling Projects. Encourage contractors
to post demolition and remodeling projects on the Internet an-
nouncing the availability of potential reusable materials.
2. Public and Private Projects. Require contractors working on City
projects to use recycled building materials and sustainably har-
vested wood products to the maximum extent possible and encour-
age them to do the same on private projects.
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/SUSTAINABILITY
5-29
Wastewater
Wastewater collection and treatment are provided to the City of Cu-
pertino by the Cupertino Sanitary District and the City of Sunnyvale. The
majority of the City is served by the Cupertino Sewer District, while the
City of Sunnyvale serves only a small portion of the Cupertino Urban Ser-
vice area within the San Jose Rancho Rinconada area, which is located ad-
joining Lawrence Expressway on the east side of the City.
GOAL J
ADEQUATE SEWER CAPACITY
Policy 5-45: Coordination with the Cupertino Sanitary District
Provide input into District's Master Plan preparation process to en-
sure that issues relevant to Cupertino's land use policies are ad-
dressed, and work closely with the District on the implementation
of the General Plan.
The Cupertino Sanitary District came into being in 1957. In 1964 it
prepared its first Master Plan. Presently the District is in the process of
preparing its second Master Plan, a process that will take approximately
two years. The Cupertino Sanitary District collects and transports waste
water collected in Cupertino to the San Jose/Santa Oara Water Pollution
Control Plant located in North San Jose, from which it has purchased 8.6
millions gallons per day (mgp). Presently, the District is only using 5.1
mgp. Therefore, there are 3.5 mgp available to the District to accommodate
future growth.
The District maintains approximately one million feet of sewer lines.
A recent inspection of approximately 100,000 feet of sewer lines revealed
that the system is in good condition. However, although the physical con-
ditions of the infrastructure appear to be good, there are some problems
with the carrying capacity of a number of lines in the system. The lines lo-
cated at the Town Center, south of Wolfe Road and south of I 280 on Wolfe
Road, Stelling Road and Foothill Blvd. are running either at capacity or
over capacity. In order to accommodate the effluent from major develop-
ments, this problem will have to be corrected. The District expects that pri-
vate developers will defray the cost of upgrading the affected sewer lines.
To transport wastewater collected in Cupertino to the Plant, the Sanitary
District must use lines traversing the Cities of Santa Oara and San Jose.
Consequently, Cupertino's effluent generated by future growth may im-
pact these lines. Therefore, the potential impacts on these lines must be
considered.
The City of Sunnyvale provides wastewater treatment service for two
blocks of Cupertino's commercial properties along east Stevens Creek
Boulevard. This service area also includes uruncorporated single-family
residential properties within the Cupertino Urban Service area. The City of
Sunnyvale Wastewater Treatment Plant has a daily treatment capacity of
29 mgd of which approximately 15 mgd are being utilized. The City of
Sunnyvale can continue to provide treatment capacity for future growth in
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
5-30
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/SUSTAINABILITY
its Cupertino service area. However, the trunk service mains and other por-
tions of the sewer main system would probably have to be upgraded by the
developers, if large office users are allowed in the Cupertino service area.
But it is unlikely that the Stevens Creek Conceptual Plan would be
amended to allow office uses in this area because of the need to maintain
compatibility with adjoining single-family residential uses.
Policy 5-46: Sunnyvale Treatment Plant
Consider the impacts on the Sunnyvale sanitary sewer system
if significant office uses are proposed in the east Stevens Creek
Boulevards area.
Policy 5-47: Valleo Parkway
Recognize that new high discharge users in the Valko area and the
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue area will require pri-
vate developers to pay for the upgrading of tributary lines.
Strategy
Cost Estimates. Develop preliminary cost estimates for the upgrad-
ing of the sewer tributary lines to discuss with prospective devel-
opers.
RESOURCES:
We'd like to thank Julie Philips, Director, CCC Statewide Energy Man-
agement Program and Pat Comely on her staff, from De Anza College
for their assistance and the information they have provided.
The following resources where used as reference for this section:
. . PG&E , www.pge.com (search under "sustainable and check-out the
rebates!)
. California Department of Energy:
www.energy.ca.gov
www.califomiaenergyefficiency.com
www.consumerenergycenter.org/rebate/index.php
database of =rent rebate and incentive programs.
.
U.S. Department of Energy,
www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/highperformance
www.sustainable.doe.gov/management/ geninfo.shtrnl#l
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/SUSTAINABILITY
5-31
·
US Green Building Council, www.usgbc.org. Visit this site for in-
formation on the LEEDS (Leadership in Energy & Environmental
Design) standard and certification process for "Green Buildings and
products" .
·
Sacramento Municipal Energy District, www.smud.or~ go to the
Green Power section of site.
·
Sunset Magazine, Sunset: New Western Garden Book and
www.sunset.com
·
Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Communities,
www.bayareaalliance.org
·
Sustainable San Mateo County www.sustainablesanmateo.org
·
Northern California Solar Energy Association:
www.-norcalsolar.org/tour
·
City of Santa Monica, www.ci.santa-monica.ca.us/environment
·
City of Portland Oregon, Office of Sustainable Development,
www.sustainableportland.org
·
De Anza College, www.energymanagement.deanza.edu
CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFT GENERAL PLAN
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 TORRE A VENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Subject: Report of the Community Development Direct~~
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesdav, February 22, 2005
The City Council met on Mondav, February 7, 2005, and Tuesdav, February 15 and
discussed the following items of interest to the Planning Commission:
February 7, 2005
1. Discussion of Land Use Policies and Development Review Processes: The City
Council directed staff to schedule as an agenda item an ordinance amending the
requirement for the City Council to authorize a General Plan Amendment. (see
attached report)
February 15, 2005
1. Marv Avenue Footbridge: The City Council adopted Resolution 05-030
authorizing the City Manager to apply for, accept and appropriate $200,000 in
Fiscal Year 2005-06 funding from the State Bicycle Transportation Account for
the Mary A venue Footbridge Improvement Project. (see attached resolution)
2. Oak Park Village: The City Council unanimously approved the zoning, use
permit and architectural and site approval to demolish a vacant restaurant
building and construct 46 residential units on the former Santa Barbara Grill site.
Council added the following conditions to its approval:
o The city council shall approve a gateway feature.
o Staff will approve the pedestrian crossing and landscaping along the
freeway off-ramp.
o Staff is to prepare a general policy regarding in lieu fees for the city
council to review at a later date independent from this application.
The Council felt it is a well-designed project that integrates well into this
location. (see attached report)
3. Council Goals and Work Program: Council adopted the Goals and Work
Program for the 2005/2006 fiscal year. (see attached goals and work program)
4. Fine Arts Commission Vacancy: Council received and accepted a letter of
resignation from Fine Arts Commissioner Shirley Un Kinoshita and directed
staff to post the vacancy, accept new applicants and invite previous applicants,
and conduct the interviews at the same time as the teen Commission interviews.
MISCELLANEOUS
1. Vallco Rose Bowl: Staff is working with Vallco Fashion Park to agendize the
Rose Bowl Architectural and Site Approval for the March 8, 2005 Planning
Commission meeting.
J).:tK. - {
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
I F
CUPEIQ"lNO
Community Development Department
SUMMAR Y
AGENDA NO. !
AGENDA DATE February 7. 2005
SUBJECT
Land Use Policies and Development Review Procedures
RECOMMENDATION
Review and discuss the following issues and provide direction to staff on how you would like to
address land use policies and review procedures during these changing times. Staff anticipates
that the Council may elect to hold further discussions due to the broad scope of the issues. Also,
Council should identify other related issues that you would like to discuss at a subsequent
meeting.
BACKGROUND
Cupertino is in the middle of updating its General Plan while the economy has gone through a
significant downturn and only recently seems to be entering a recovery period. At the same time,
the city electorate will be deciding an initiative petition affecting critical land use parameters in
November 2005. Project applicants continue to propose development applications based on the
existing policy framework of the city. In light of all of the above changes several recent
development applications have met with opposition from individual members of the Council
questioning the appropriateness of a particular land use or land use mix otherwise allowed by the
current policy structure in General Plan or the specific plan.
In the face of all of these changes, members of the City Council asked that land use policies and
procedures be reviewed to determine if there is a strategy and/or administrative procedures that
will enable the city to provide better guidance to applicants during these changing times.
Attached is a copy of the Heart of the City Specific Plan to reacquaint the Council with the
existing policy structure in this area. Also, staff sent a post card mailer to all Cupertino
residential addresses in the city advising residents of this meeting (see attached) and is sending
this staff report to the Chamber of Commerce representatives.
DISCUSSION
))-~
Land Use Policies and Review Procedures Development
February 7. 2005
Page 2
The policy ftamework of the city has been developed over the past ten to twenty years after
extensive public hearings and considerable discussion by the then City Council(s) and Planning
Cornmission(s) and with the community. The city policy structure is contained in the GeneraJ
Plan, Heart of the City Plan, North De Anza Boulevard Plan, numerous other policy plans and
the zoning ordinance (e.g. the Rl ordinance and the parking ordinance) and Municipal Code of
the city. As we have seen with the General Plan and the Rl zoning Ordinance, it takes
considerable effort and hearings to amend the existing policy/ordinance structure of the city. If
the Council wishes to amend these rules it is best done after reviewing the possible rationaJe,
after which it would be necessary to advertise public hearings and invite affected property owners
or stakeholders to comment on the proposed changes. The purpose of this memo is to discuss
the possible rationaJe and options to facilitate the Council discussion of these issues.
Since it takes considerable Council, staff and community effort to amend the policy structure it
seems most appropriate to identify the policy issues through the 'current update process to the
General Plan. In the meantime, it may be necessary to prioritize the most important conflict
points and consider establishing a moratorium on all new development in certain categories or to
establish a more informal Council direction for developments seeking approval in mixed-use
areas. Following your discussion, the Council can decide if the work program should include
some high priority changes to this policy rramework.
Land Use and Procedural Issues
The following list contains issues that have been raised in conjunction with development
applications or questions council members have raised during these rapidly changing times.
Following the issue title is a brief commentary to rrame the issue and identify possible strategies
to leverage the city's interests.
1) DeveloDment Review Procedures:
. Should the City Council function as General Plan "gatekeepers" and continue
to determine whether applicants can apply for General Plan Amendments and
should the Council continue to hold study sessions on preliminary
development applications?
The "gate keeper" function that the Council performs for generaJ plan
amendment requests has the advantage that development proposals can be re-
directed into formats that are more compatible with the community and the
public isn't invited to public hearings to comment on clearly inappropriate
applications. Similarly, study sessions can be used to redirect major projects
into projects that are more consistent with community goals. In some cases,
the applicants use the early review to "test run" different proposals or "shop"
individual ideas, hoping to find the right mix of enticements that will increase
their chances of approval.
:?J-3
Land Use Policies and Review Procedures Development
February 7. 2005
Page 3
The downside of these practices is that the public gets the impression that the
Council is deciding whether to approve the application when you are only
deciding if the applicant should be allowed to file an application. Frequently,
individual council comments on the preliminary project submittal have been
misconstrued as endorsements in advance of the fonnal public hearing
process.
Staff believes the Council should abandon this practice while the General Plan
update and initiative vote is taking place. The Council can re-evaluate re-
instituting the practice at a later date following the election and general plan
update.
. When should city-wide notification be used?
City-wide notification has been used three times in the past two months to
advertise the Planning Commission General Plan community meetings, the
Toll Bros. request to proceed with a general plan amendment and this
discussion on land use policies and development review processes. The city
funded two of the advertisements. The cost is about $3,000 for residential
customers and $5,000 for all postal customers. At that rate, if the city funded
one city-wide advertisement per month there is a budget impact of
approximately $36,000 to $60,000 per year (one per month = 12 x $3k to 5K
per notice = $36K to $60k per year). The number of city paid advertisements
will probably not exceed 10 to 12 per year. Staff is comfortable determining
when a project has city-wide significance or asking the Council if there is any
question.
Applicants will decide if they wish to proceed with a general plan amendment
application and the City Council can remain separate from the process and
evaluate the application on its merits once it is submitted for your review.
Staff will keep the Council infonned of significant proposals through the
Development Activity Report and/or weekly notes.
. What is the aDproDriate method to determine residential densities for
vertical mixed-use proiects?
The current General Plan contains no methodology for detennining residential
density on vertical mixed-use sites. Presumably this was a conscious intent to
encourage vertical mixed-use instead of horizontal mixed-use. With Council
direction it is simple to calculate the proportionate share of the square footage
in the project and allocate this proportion to the available land area. Then the
residential density of the vertical residential component will be based on the
relative portion of the land area occupied by the residential component. This
))-1
Land Use Policies and Review Procedures Development
February 7, 2005
Page 4
would be a similar methodology to the allocation for horizontal mixed-use
where the site is apportioned based on the actual area occupied by each use.
2) Where should residential land uses be allowed?
The General Plan has a few remaining units in the Heart of the City and units
remaining in the North De Anza Boulevard and Bubb Road Industrial park areas.
Applicants have applied for portions of these units to be allocated to the sites at
the Adobe Lounge (29 units), Santa Barbara Grill (46 units) and Results Way (94
units). The Council has discussed reallocating units away from school impact
areas into the Valleo Park area.
The city could establish criteria to det=ine where and how many residential
units should be reallocated and may be able to identify other strategies to soften or
mitigate the impacts such as working with the districts on mitigation fees and
directing that projects on the edge of attendance boundaries be directed to the
school best able to accommodate the students.
Residential uses in the Heart of the City should be considered in areas that are
served by parks and where residents can access community facilities such as retail
and restaurants. Residential uses should be established where it can integrate into
an existing mixed-use or predominately residential fabric. Sites that are adjacent
to existing or plarmed residential developments should be considered for
residential uses. Adjacency can be loosely interpreted when residential uses
seems to provide much needed housing and solves a land use issue. The
Hamptons is an example of a stand-alone residential project that is proximate to
services at Cupertino Village and near other residential developments across
Wolfe Road. The following section elaborates on using housing to the city's
advantage.
3) Can housinl! be offered as an incentive to provide retail or contribution to an
in-lieu fee?
Housing has been credited with undermining the service levels in our schools and
usurping the opportunity to ever develop the site for sales tax generating retail
uses. This is a switch from the recent past when residential was viewed as
addressing the jobslhousing imbalance and higher density was seen as providing a
mix of more affordable units to accommodate a wider spectrum of the market.
There is a level of validity to both perceptions of residential impacts.
There is validity to the concept that once devoted to ownership residential a site
designated for commercial will not be available again for retail uses. For these
reasons the General Plan Task Force recommended policies discouraging
residential uses in commercial districts. The issue of where, what type, and how
:/J-5
Land Use Policies and Review Procedures Development
February 7, 2005
Page 5
much housing should factor into the equation. We need to get better at predicting
the impact of different densities of residential and detennining if it is an asset or a
detriment to our schools. The Bay Area Economics study of the initiatives
generally concluded that higher or lower density residential generated about the
same number of high school students; however, the higher density generated more
property tax to compensate the Fremont High School District for on-going
operating costs to serve the students. In a recent application the district cited a
standard student generation rate that was four times the actual number generated
from a comparable density project. The use of "one size fits all" generation rates
unfairly projects the actual impact because of the predominance of higher student
generating single-family uses in the city. Staff will be working with the high
school district to get a better understanding of residential project impacts
following publication of the district impact study.
Residential is the current market preference and may be judiciously used to
encourage the preferred mix of uses. That is, the Council could specify that
approval of residential will be a function of the mix of retail, appropriateness of
the site and/or payment of an equivalent in-lieu fee. The Council should leverage
the current market land use preference (whether it is residential or office or
commercial) in mixed-use areas to ensure the most beneficial and complementary
combination of uses for the site and revenue generation for the city.
Also, affordable housing has consistently been ranked in the Community Surveys
as one of the most important issues facing Cupertino. Providing a greater variety
of housing types seems like a favorable manner to address this concern.
4) Should the City insist on retail on all commercial sites where it is allowed as a
land use option?
The Heart of the City plan and the North De Anza Boulevard plan allow
commercial as part of the mixed-use options available to applicants. The North
De Anza Boulevard area is predominantly an office park with ancillary
commercial (e.g. Outback, BJs, and Donut Wheel) and limited quasi-public and
instruction (e.g. church and swim school). The North De Anza Boulevard area is
surrounded by residential uses. Council will recall that the issue of critical mass
came up when reviewing the church application and we committed to monitoring
the introduction of alternate uses allowed in the area to maintain the office park as
the predominant use.
Similarly, the Heart of the City encompasses the Stevens Creek Boulevard block
from the easterly city limits to Highway 85. The plan identifies three primary
commercial nodes, including the Oaks Shopping Center, Crossroads/City Center
and Vallco Fashion Park. The intervening area between Vallco and the
Crossroads/City Center is identified for supporting uses such as residential and
J;-/P
Land Use Policies and Review Procedures Development
February 7. 2005
Page 6
office. The concept seems to be that these "supportive uses" would be populated
by residents of the homes and workers in the offices that would frequent the
business in the primary commercial nodes. The plan also implies that it did not
envision stringing commercial uses along the entire length of Stevens Creek
Boulevard in the Heart of the City.
This concept that there is a limited demand for retail seems to intuitively make
sense. The city should determine if the limited market demand should be
protected for the three commercial areas. Commercial policies could advocate
creating a critical mass of commercial tenants in close proximity to encourage
shoppers to walk from shop to shop and combine multiple visits into one shopping
trip. The Stevens Creek properties outside of the three nodes are a mixed pattern
including office, residential, De Anza College, Memorial Park and Sports Center,
and single purpose commercial such as furniture stores and larger format
restaurants. The larger predominantly retail shopping centers are clustered near
Valleo Fashion Park and Crossroads/City Center. Also, we have witnessed that
the current market prefers to keep some of these commercial sites vacant for long
periods rather than re-tenant the space with retail or restaurant uses.
Also, it is important to understand that the policy of allowing residential to infill
in the Heart of the City, Vallco and North De Anza Boulevard is an essential
element of the Housing strategy of the General Plan to meet our inventory of
adequate sites. Should the plan be amended to reallocate or eliminate this option
it may be necessary to amend the Housing Element and go back through the State
HCD review process.
Therefore, staff believes the current policy of allowing mixed use in the mid-block
areas is still sound and that perhaps the city should be looking to retain an in-lieu
fee to compensate for the lost opportunity cost of allowing these sites to have non-
traditional retail uses. It is likely that these fees could only be collected through a
development agreement.
5) How realistic is the current General Plan incentive to provide a bil! box
retailer in the citv?
Clearly, this is a difficult question to address absent a stndy. Staff has received
inquiries from two big box retailers who have indicated there is a "hole in the
market" in this area, meaning this area is underserved and they would like to fmd
a site to accommodate their use. Intuitively this assessment seems to match our
understanding of the proximity of big box to the West Valley. Presumably if it is
not filled in Cupertino it will be filled on a large site in an adjacent community,
reducing sales to Cupertino businesses. We have seen this impact with the big
box Home Depot that located in San Jose and the smaller box Trader Joe's that
located in Los Altos, both of which are immediately adjacent to our border. When
;)-7
Land Use Policies and Review Procedures Development
February 7. 2005
Page 7
this happens we inherit the traffic, market impacts on our retail (e.g. Minton's
Lumber and Oakville Market) without the sales tax benefits. The question is
exacerbated by the fact that big box can only pay about half the value for land
compared to a residential developer.
Staff believes we should aggressively promote a big box somewhere in the Valleo
park area and should anticipate that we may need to facilitate the location by
assisting with infrastructure, or other means, where feasible.
6) What is mixed-use? Is residential a sil!nificant economic enl!ine or driver for
Qualitv commercial develovment in the city?
Mixed-use commonly refers to the practice of moving away from single purpose
zones in the core areas of cities and instead allowing a greater variety of uses. The
presumption is this provides a greater land use texture and greater walk-ability to
more proximate uses. We have seen this in the City Center where corporate and
local service offices are joined by residential, retail, restaurants, lodging, civic
uses, plazas and parks into a rich suburban and urban fabric. In some cases,
mixed-use has been heralded as the "new urbanism" and "smart growth" because
it purposely blends uses in a manner that allows for multiple walking trips and
diminishes the necessity of driving to multiple single purpose use sites. It is the
antidote to the traditional concept of urban sprawl where the automobile is a
necessity with all of its air pollution and congestion impacts instead of a choice.
The experience at Santana Row in San Jose and the proposal from at the
Rosebowl in Valleo Park seem to support the premise that residential is an
economic engine in the current market and can drive higher quality retail uses.
Also, we have seen numerous mixed-use with residential over retail in building in
otherwise traditional suburban settings such as Los Gatos and Palo Alto. The city
should be aggressive about leveraging current market trends, whether the current
trends support residential, office or quasi-public uses, to accomplish other
community objectives such as retail sales tax offices, in-lieu fees and the highest
quality development.
Submitted by:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
David W. Knapp
City Manager
7)-t
land Use Policies and Review Procedures Development
February 7, 2005
Page 8
cc:
Chamber of Conunerce
City of Cupertino Department Directors
Enclosures:
Copy of the post card notice sent to all Cupertino residential customers
Heart of the City Specific Plan
2J-'1
Report of the Community Development Director
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Page 2
Enclosures:
Staff Reports and Newspaper Articles
G:planning/StevePjdirector's reportjpd.2-22-05
;])- 10
RESOLUTION NO. 05-030
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR, ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE
$200,000 IN FY 2005-06 FUNDING FROM THE STATE BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION
ACCOUNT FOR THE MARY AVENUE FOOTBRIDGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the State Department of Transportation Bicycle Transportation Account
(BT A) annually disburses funding to eligible jurisdictions for projects that improve safety and
convenience for bicycle commuters; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino desires to apply for, accept and appropriate up to
$200,000 in funding from BT A for fiscal year 2005-06 for the purpose of appropriating said
funding to Public Works Department to implement a class II commute bikeway; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino will provide the required 10 percent local match for
the BTA funds; and
WHEREAS, said funding will allow the City to construct a bicycle and pedestrian
footbridge to connect existing bicycle lanes over State Freeway 280 that will create a bicycle
commuter corridor.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby authorizes the City Manager to apply, accept and appropriate of FY 2005-2006 BTA
funds in the amount of $200,000 to design and construct the Mary Avenue Footbridge; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager, or his designee, is authorized, on
behalf of the City of Cupertino, to execute and submit all documents, payment requests, and
related actions, as well as, to appropriate any additional funds received for the completion of the
project; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that should additional funds be received for this project,
the City Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized to accept and appropriate the same for
the purposes described above.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 15th day of Febmary, 2005, by the following vote:
Vote
Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, Wang, James
None
None
None
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
IslKimberly Smith
Is! Patrick Kwok
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Cupertino
J)-/I
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
ël1Y ÖF
CUPEI{fINO
Community Development Department
Summary
Agenda Item No. _ Agenda Date: February 15. 2005
Application: EA-2004-10, Z-2004-03, TM-2004-11, U-20ü4-09, ASA-2004-12
Applicant (s): Greg Pinn (Oak Park Village)
Property Location: 10745 N. De Anza Boulevard - Former Santa Barbara Grill Site
APN#: 326-10-064
Application Summary:
Consider denying a Rezoning Application to rezone the property from P(CG, ML, Res 4-10)
to P(CG, ML, Res 35). Tentative Map Application for 46 residential condominiums. Use
Permit to demolish a 7,744 square foot vacant restaurant (former Santa Barbara Grill) and
construct a 46-unit condominium (Oak Park Village). Architectural and Site Approval for
46 residential units.
RECOMMENDATION
The PJanrring Commission recommends that the City Council deny:
1. Mitigated Negative Declaration, file number EA-2004-10; and
2. Rezoning application, Z-2004-03Use; and
3. Tentative Map application, TM-2004-11; and
4. Permit application, U-2004-09; alld
5. Architectural and Site application, ASA-2004-12.
Project Data:
Site Area:
No. Units:
Proposed Building Area:
1.37 acres.
46 units.
83,941 sq.ft (62,264 sq. ft living & 21,677 sq. ft
circula tion/ patio)
Proposed Garage Area: 31,022 sq. ft
Parking Spaces: 102 spaces (88 underground and 15 surface parking).
General Plan Designation: Office/Industrial/Commercial/Residential
Zoning Designation: P(CG, ML, Res 4-10) - Planned Development (General
Commercial, Light Industrial, Residential 4-10 units/ ac).
If approved, P(CG, ML, Res 35) Planned Development
(General Commercial, Light Industrial, Residential 35
units/ ac).
Project Consistency with:
General Plan: Yes.
Zoning: Yes.
)) -/;;0
Printed on Recycled Paper
Applications: U-2004-09, TM-2004-11,
ASA-2004-12, Z-2004-03,
EA-2004-10
Oak Park Village
February 15, 2005
Page 2
Specific Plan:
Environmental Assessment:
North De Anza Boulevard Plan.
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
BACKGROUND
On June 2, 2003, the City Council approved a hotel (Extended Stay America) at the subject
site but the project was never built. The new proper owner, Pinn Brothers, is now
requesting approval to build a 46-unit condominium project. The Planning Commission
recommended denial (3-1-1) of the project on January 25, 2005, citing concerns regarding
. density, proximity to the 1-280 and residential uses at the project location.
Project Description
The 1.37-acre project site at 10745 N. De Anza Boulevard is located south of Highway 280
and across the street from the Apple campus. The site is bounded by office uses to the
south and east, and office and commercial uses to the west. The grade at the building line
along North De Anza Boulevard slopes up about 5 feet above the grade at the curb. The
proposed 46-condominium building is three stories (with a mezzanine) and 48 feet high,
. and includes an 88-car underground parking garage. In accordance with the City's
Housing Mitigation Procedural Manual, 15% of the units (7 units) will be affordable units.
General Plan and Zoning
The General Plan designation is Office/Industrial/Commercial/Residential. The proposed
building is consistent with the land use since residential is allowed. The project will
require 46 units to be allocated from the North De Anza allocation pool (currently 150 units
are available) leaving 104 remaining units in the pool. The proposed 50-foot tall building is
less than the maximum allowed height of 60 feet. The building bulk is also below the 1:1
slope line drawn from the edge of curb as required (see sheet AOl in plan set). The cUrrent
zoning of the site allows a residential density range of 4 - 10 dwellings per acre. The
General Plan allows up to 35 dwelling units per acre in this area. The applicant's request is
consistent with the density allocation of the General Plan. Therefore, the project is
consistent with the General Plan and Zoning and no exceptions are being requested.
North De Anza Conceptual Plan
The North De Anza Conceptual Plan provides development standards and streetscape
requirements for properties located south of Highway 280, Garden Gate subdivision to the
west, Alves Drive and St. Joseph's church to the south, and Collins Junior High and
properties on Larry Way to the east. The project complies with the development standards
as follows:
. The project provides a 50-foot wide landscaped setback (measured from the curb) with
a meandering sidewalk as required in the Plan. A public access easement is included in
the conditions of approval to allow portions of the meandering sidewalk to be located
on private property.
. The building is located adjacent to the street with parking in the rear. The building is
consistent with the architecture along the street in conformance with the requirement
for" architectural continuity" per the Plan.
2
);-13
Applications: U-2004-09, TM-2004-11,
ASA-2004-12, Z-2004-03,
EA-2004-10
Oak Park Village
February 15, 2005
Page 3
A condition of approval requires the applicant to sign a written agreement agreeing to join
an open space maintenance district when such a district is formed. Until such a district is
formed, the applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the landscaped area including
the public right-of-way, in a manner acceptable to the City.
. Fiscal Impacts
At the General Plan Task Force meetings, concerns were raised regarding residential
developments replacing industrial/ commercial or non-residential developments in terms
of the fiscal impacts to the City. The City revenues generated by otherwise· commercial
uses would be eliminated by non-sales tax based uses. In order to mitigate such loss, the
conditions require this developer to enter into a development agreement with the City,
agreeing to compensate the City for the potential revenue loss of converting commercial
use to residential use. The appropriate amount of compensation shall be determined by
taking 25% of the total site area and multiplying it by the average commercial restaurant
sales tax revenue that the City usually receives from other restaurants or retail uses in the
City (to be determined by the City prior to issuance of building permits) as shown by the
following equation:
Developer commercial sales tax compensation =
(59,677 square feet [1.37 acre] x .25) x The Average Restaurant/Retail Sales Tax Revenue
The average sales tax return should be reduced to reflect the poor access and historic under
performing nature of this site. The developer is also required to pay other fees such as Park
Fees (estimated at $315,900) and other construction service fees to cover plan checks and
inspections (estimated at 5% of off-site improvement cost or $2,130 minimum & 5% of the
on-site improvement cost). In addition, according to the applicant, the condos will generate
approximately $322,000 per a year in property tax ($7,000 per unit x 46 units). The City will
receive approximately $12,880 per year from the property tax ($322,000 x .04). The Fremont
Union High School District is projected to receive $53,440 ($322,000 x .167) from property
tax and approximately $133,245 from developer fees (62,264 total living square feet x 2.14).
PLANNING COMMISSION CONCERNS
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the project based on a 3-1-1 vote, with
Commissioner Miller abstaining. Commissioners identified three reasons for
recommending denial of the project
1. The praposed dEnsity is too high - Some of the concerns raised by the Commissioners
were on the proposed project density (29 dwelling units per acre). Even though
permitted by the General Plan, some Commissioners felt that the density is too high for
this site and would like to see a lower density project (10 dwelling units per acre). This
may mean a lowered building and possibly detached units.
3
);-/1-
Applications: U-2004-09, TM-2004-11,
ASA-2004-12,2-2004-03,
EA-2004-10
Oak Park Village
February 15, 2005
Page 4
2. The proposed residential condos are too close to [-280 - Some commissioners expressed
concerns about the potential noise impacts and the overall quality of living for
residential units right next to the freeway.
3. The City would like to see some fonn of commercial or office development at the site - Concerns
were raised regarding converting the property into residential use. Some
Commissioners expressed the desire for commercial and office uses on this site.
PUBLIC INPUT
Some neighbors and members of the public voiced concerns regarding traffic safety issues
and cut through traffic. Most of the issues raised involve existing situations unrelated to
the proposed project, but to current conditions.
Staff note: The project traffic is expected to approach and depart via De Anza Boulevard.
Some traffic may use neighborhood streets such as Stelling Road, Valley Green Drive,
Greenleaf Drive, and Beardon Drive. The project is expected to generate 20 AM peak-hour
trips (3 in/17out) and 24 PM peak-hour trips (16in/8 out) and the amount of vehicles
added to existing streets will be insignificant The proposed condo project would generate
substantially less trips than the approved hotel and the previous restaurant (479 trips less
than the hotel and 658 trips less than the restaurant). Therefore the project is not expected
to significantly impact the immediate neighborhood.
STAFF COMMENTS
Staff recommended approval of the applicant's proposal because it is consistent with the
General Plan and the North De Anza Conceptual Plan. Also the applicant has worked
diligently with staff to design a building that will not only be compatible with the
surrounding commercial/ office buildings (both design and height) but also enhance this
gateway area to the City. In addition, the developer has agreed to compensate the City for
the potential revenue loss of converting commercial to residential. Historically, commercial
restaurants have not done well at this site due to difficult site access and lack of building
visibility. Randoll MackIy, a commercial real estate consultant who was retained by the
developer to study the commercial viability of this site, has also confirmed that the site is
not suitable for commercial activities since it is in an isolated location, detached from any
pedestrian activities. Given the existing high vacancy rate of office buildings it will also be
difficult to economically facilitate another new office complex at the project site, especially
with a vacant NetManagement office building immediately adjacent The detailed project
issues are outlined in the staff report to the Planning Commission dated January 25, 2005
(See attachment).
If the Council finds merits in the project it could approve the project based on the
conditions recommended to the Planning Commission.
4
JJ- 1:...5
Applications: U-2004-09, TM-2004-11,
ASA-2004-12, Z-2004-03,
EA-2004-10
Page 5
Prepared by: Gary Chao, Assistant Planner
APPROVED BY:
D'~~
City Manager
SUB
\
\ ?-RrF7
Steve Piasec .
Director Of Community Development
ENCLOSURES
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6288
Recommended Conditions of Approval
Zoning Ordinance
Zoning Plat Map
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Plan set
Planning Commission staff report dated January 25, 2005.
Minutes of the Planning Commission dated January 25, 2005.
5
Oak Park Village
February 15, 2005
~-Ib
The Recommended Conditions of Approval
CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED 'By THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEFT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on plan set dated January 14, 2005, entitled "Oak Park Village,
10745 N. De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino, CA, by Pinn Brothers," and as amended
by this resolution.
2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Approval is granted for the demolition of the former Santa Barbara Grill restaurant
and construction of a 46-unit condornirúum complex with a 88-car underground
parking garage and 15 surface parking spaces.
3. PROTECT AMENDMENTS
Amendments to the project, considered major by the Director of Community
Development, shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
4. DESIGN
The applicant shall work with staff and the City's consultant architect to provide
the following design changes that shall be approved by the Design Review
Committee prior to issuance of building permits:
a. Enhance the entry feature along De Anza Boulevard - the arched entry awning should
be more substantial to be more distinct at a pedestrian level. The entry steps/ short
walls should be more prominent.
b. Colors - Consider a lighter combination of colors for the main body of the building to
be more consistent with the neighboring buildings.
c. Windows - Recess windows to a minjmum of 3 inches from the exterior wall face.
d. Provide pavers in all driveway and surface parking areas currently proposed to be
asphalt. The north and south paths should also have pavers. Pavers on sand shall be
provided where paving located on natural ground. Special pavers should also be
provided on the podium wherever feasible.
e. Landscaping Swales - Bio-swales should be provided when ever possible in
landscaping areas. Especially along the northerly boundary of the property.
f. Lighting -
· Provide high quality pedestrian scaled lights and lit bollards in the front entry area,
parking area, interior courtyard area, and the north and south bike paths.
· Provide uplighting for the building, tower element, entry awnings to enhance
visibility of the building at night.
· Provide uplights for the trees in the landscaped frontage along the North De Anza
Boulevard frontage, the specimen oak tree, and proposed trees in the parking lot.
5. FRONT PLAZA AND GATEWAY FEATURE
The applicant shall create a more substantial front plaza area around the entry
lobby. In addition, the applicant shall work with staff to design a substantial
gateway feature(s) (i.e., public art and/ or water feature) in front of the project
))-)7
along De Anza Boulevard. The final design of the plaza area and the gateway
feature(s) shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council.
6. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved
by staff prior to issuance of building permits. Staging of construction equipment
shall not occur within 250 feet of any residential property.
7. LANDSCAPING
a. A landscape bond in the amount of the cost of the landscaping shall be
provided prior to issuance of building permits. The bond shall be returned
upon inspection by Planning staff and a letter from the landscape architect
certifying that all landscaping per the approval has been installed in the proper
manner.
b. The applicant shall adhere to the recommendations of the City Arborist in the
report dated November 1, 2004 and any subsequent supplement reports
thereafter.
c. Preliminary, the project proposes to plant 52 new trees as mitigation for the
removal. At the time of the preparation of this staff report, the City Arborist is
assessing the values of the removed trees and will determine additional
appropriate mitigation measures. Some of the replacements may include field
grown trees. The project will be required as a condition to adhere to the City
Arborist's recommendations. The proposed landscaping plan shall be revised
to be consistent with the City's Arborist's recommendations.
d. The applicant shall work with staff to provide additional screening trees along
the highway off ramp in the landscaping buffer area. The appropriate
approval shall be obtained from California Transportation if applicable. The
final number of trees, size and location shall be reviewed and approved by the
Director of Community Development.
8. PEDISTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
The applicant shall work with staff to develop a plan to improve the public
pedestrian crosswalks and street intersections around the project site. Potential
improvements could include, but not limited to, special striping, special paving
material, sign enhancements, traffic signal improvements, landscaping
enhancements and special features that will promote a safer pedestrian crossing
environment. The final improvement plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Director of Community Development.
9. TREE PROTECTION
a. Protection plan - As part of the building permit drawings, a tree protection plan
shall be prepared by a landscape architect or certified arborist for the specimen
oak and trees to be retained on the site. The tree protection shall be inspected
and approved by the landscape architect prior to beginning construction.
b. Tree protection Bond - The applicant, prior to issuance of the first building
permit, shall provide a tree protection bond in the amount of $50,000 to ensure
2
Jj-/0
protection of existing trees on the site during construction. The bond shall be
returned after occupancy pennit is issued upon provision of a report by a
landscape architect or certified arborist indicating that the trees are in good
condition.
10. PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT
Pedestrian easements over the sidewalk area and through the interior pedestrian
paths shall be prepared by the developer, approved by the City Attorney and
recorded against the subject property prior to issuance of building permits.
11. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults, backflow preventers and similar above
ground equipment enclosures shall not be located in the front (curb to building)
along North De Anza Boulevard. The equipment locations shall be determined
prior to issuance of building permits. The equipment shall be screened with
fencing and landscaping or located underground such that it is not visible from
public areas or the private drive to the west of the site. Any existing above grade
transformers or utility boxes/ cabinets in front of the project building shall be
either be relocated or be underground.
12. TRASH ENCLOSURE
The trash enclosure shall be attractively designed to match the architecture of the
building and shall be screened by landscaping. The design shall be approved by
the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits.
13. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
The following shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits:
a. The property is to be maintained free of any debris and weeds until the time
that actual construction commences. All existing structures shall be secured, or
be demolished or removed from the property.
b. The applicant shall sign a written agreement agreeing to join an open space
maintenance district when such a district is formed. Until such a district is
formed. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the landscaped
area, including that in the public right-of-way, in a manner acceptable to the
City.
c. The landscaping shall be maintained in good health and graffiti shall be
removed within a reasonable period of time.
d. Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CC&Rs): The applicant shall be required to
record a maintenance agreement and CC&Rs, subject to review and approval
by the City Attorney, City Engineer, and Community Development Director,
which shall include the following:
1. Continued architectural controls to ensure the architectural integrity of the
project.
ii. Description and map illustrating "public" areas to be maintained and ensure
that the open space area and pedestrian/bike paths and the landscaped area
along the frontage are available to the public.
3
JJ-IÝ
iii. Standards for maintenance for landscaping within the project site to be
prepared by a landscape architect.
iv. Standards for the long-term property maintenance for the building,
landscaping and sound walls as necessary including: maintaining the property
free of debris and weeds at all times and graffiti removal within a reasonable
period of time.
v. Naming of the City as a third party beneficiary with the opportunity to lien
properties for any breach of the maintenance agreement and CC&Rs.
14. UTILITY EASEMENTS
Written approval from the agencies with easements on the property (including
PG&E, Pac Bell and California Water Company, and/or equivalent agencies) will
be required as a condition of approval prior to issuance of building permits.
15. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
A letter of clearance for the proposed project shall be obtained from the Santa
Oara Valley Water District prior to issuance of building permits.
16. SANITARY DISTRICT
Prior to obtaining a permit for occupancy, the applicant shall provide written
confirmation from the Cupertino Sanitary District that adequate capacity is
available for the project or the applicant shall make the necessary improvements to
ensure adequate capacity for the project.
17. BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS
A total of seven (7) units out of the 46 condorrllniums shall be affordable per the
guidelines set forth in the City's Housing Mitigation Procedural Manual.
18. SIGNAGE AND DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE
a. Signage is not approved as part of this application. The application shall bring
a signage plan to be approved by the Director of Community Development
b. As part of the signage plan, the applicant shall include directional signage,
possibly on North De Anza Boulevard and Valley Green Drive, to provide
visitors clear directions to the vehicular entrance of the site.
19. MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS
The applicant is required to contribute up to $25,000 toward the replacement of the
dilapidated welcome to Cupertino sign in the street median or construct a new
sign per City specifications to be determined at a later date.
20. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENT
All existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to or concurrently with
project construction. The existing building materials shall be recycled. The
developer shall assume the responsibility to obtain all required demolition permits
in accordance with the City Ordinance.
4
) .-,2[)
21. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER
EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant
to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written
notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the
dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that
the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications,
reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a),
has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all
of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred £rom later
challenging such exactions.
CONDmONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
22. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance
with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
23. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in
accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer.
24. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City.
25. TRAFFIC SIGNS, DETAILS AND LEGENDS
Traffic control signs, details and legends shall be placed at locations specified by
the City. All improvement plans shall include all necessary signage, details and
legends along with traffic control plans.
26. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type
approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.
27. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance
with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404
permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and! or Regional
Water Quality Control Board as appropriate.
28. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre and Post-
development calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm
water control measures are to be installed.
5
;})~~)
29. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing
utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the
affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
30. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking
and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for
undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of
construction permits.
"
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees:
$2,130 minimum
b. Grading Permit:
c. Development Maintenance Deposit:
d. Storm Drainage Fee:
e. Power Cost:
f. Map Checking Fees:
g. Park Fees:
$ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or
$ 5% of On- Site Improvement Cost
$ 1,000.00
TED
**
$ 6,750.00
$ 315,900 *
* Park fee calculations based on 39 units once the 7 BMR units were subtracted
from the total of 46.
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule
adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified
at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the
event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then
current fee schedule.
** Developer is required for one-year power cost for streetlights
31. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
. enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground
such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
6
1J-.:2;¿
32. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES
The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed
to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water
service to the subject development.
33. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water
Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans
shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans.
34. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP)
REQUIREMENTS
In addition, the applicant must include the use and maintenance of BMPs for site
design and storm water treatment, which must be designed per approved numeric
sizing criteria. The property owners with treatment BMPs will be required to
certify on-going operation and maintenance.
35. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
The applicant must obtain a notice of intent (NOl) £rom the State Water Resources
Control Board, which encompasses a preparation of a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMP' s)
to control storm water runoff quality and BMP inspection and maintenance.
. 36. EROSION CONTROL PLAN
The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered
Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to
retain materials on-site. Erosion Control notes shall be stated on the plans.
37. TRASH ENCLOSURES
The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental
Programs Department. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior
to obtaining a building permit.
38. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
The developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to maintain
all non-standard items in the City's Right-of-way.
7
;j) -,;¿3
Program 2005-2006
in priority order
and Work
Items are not
Goals
City Council
Comments
Status
February 4, 2005 -
Goal
Project
to conference space
Interim proj ect to convert
Spring 2005
Spring 2005
Spring 2005
Library and Civic Center
Morion Move
Memorial Grove
Old Council Chamber Conversion
a.
b.
c.
1
On Sept. 15 the City Council directed staff to
continue to work on the corridor plan including
· Year-round use
· Incorporating a multi-use trail
· Working with the Cupertino Historical
Society on the Center for Living History
· Reducing the size of the picnic grounds
· Changing the fee collection system
Staff is working on completing the master plan
and seeking funding to implement it. This is an
ongoing project.
The Stevens Creek trail is a single
component of the Stevens Creek
Corridor Plan. On 9/15/03 the
Council directed that the trail
through the corridor should be
multi-use.
'Trails Plan
Stevens Creek Corridor Plan
a.
2.
PedlBike Conunission identified the Regnart
Trail as one of their goals for 2005/2006.
Regnart Creek Trail
b.
Adopted budget $9,250,000.
Staff authorized to seek additional $2,165,000 in
outside funding.
2005
1,
Proposal to Council- Feb.
Bid Project - Fall, 2005'
Completion- Dec. 2006
.
Mary Avenue Pedestrian Footbridge
c.
~
\
!t
8,2005
& Work Progral11- February
Cupertino Couucil Goals
of 17
1
Page
City Council Goals and Work Program 2005-2006
February 4, 2005 -- Items are not in priority order
Comments
Status
Goal
Project
The contract with the Water District for
approximately 50% of the consultant cost has
been executed and the consultants have begun
work.
On March 7th the City Council and
Parks and Recreation Commission
will meet to consider:
Parks
Stevens Creek Corridor Park
1. Complete the Stevens Creek Corridor
Master Plan
a.
3
Funding totaling $1.4 million has been secured.
Staff is awaiting word on other funding requests
submitted.
an east or west trail alignment
the operating budget for the
proposed SCC park
the date of closure of BBF so
construction can commence.
·
·
·
The environmental review of proposed park and
restoration improvements is underway.
Underway
Complete the environmental review for the
Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
including a review of alternative trail
alignments
2.
The County has received a grant for
the paved trail in Reach A.
Monitor progress of County in constructing
Reach A
3
The board of the Cupertino Historical Society
has received the consultant report which reveals
that just over one million dollars can be expected
to be raised.
Staff will process a General Plan amendment and
zone change for the Stocklmeir property to allow
the Historical Society to house offices and
exhibits in the Stocklmeir house.
The Cupertino Historical Society has
asked that the Council agreed to a
long-term lease ofthe Stocklmeir
property and the historic bam and
blacksmith shop at McClellan
Ranch, if within 5 years of
commencement of their capital
campaign, they raise sufficient
money for restoration.
Support the Cupertino Historical Society in
its efforts to create a Center for Living
History
4.
On Jan. 25'h the City and Water District jointly
submitted a funding request to the Dept. of
The partnership agreement with the
Water District was approved and the
Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water
District on a partnership to complete the
5
f0
\
50
en
8, 2005
& Work Program - February
Cupertino Council Goals
Page 2 of 17
2005-2006
City Council Goals and Work Program
February 4, 2005 -- Items are not in priority order
Comments
Water Resources for restoration. This will
augment the District's commitment under the
FARCE settlement.
We have also applied for a Healthy Cities grant
for $400,000 and are awaiting word. Staff has
identified other funding sources and continues to
prepare applications.
Note: Sufficient funds are available to begin
construction in 2006. A council decision
regarding when to change the operation of
Blackberry Farm is needed.
The staff of all entities is working to define the
potential site boundary and scope. It is then
expected that in early 2005 a meeting/conference
with staff and elected representatives to fmalize
to:
concept.
Once this has occurred, the next steps will be
· realign the city boundaries so that the
park is within the City of Cupertino.
· Do community outreach to determine
what the park should be
· budget for said proj ect, and
· begin to pursue funding
Status
Water District Board appropriated
$161,000 toward the project.
Project Goal
riparian planning and restoration for
Stevens Creek Corridor Park
6. Apply for grant funding
The City received the following
grants/funds: Land and Water
Conservation grant -- $89,000;
Urban Park Act grant -- $834,000;
Santa Clara County Water District
$161;000; 2002 Resources Bond Act
-- $129,165 and State per Capita
Bond -- $220,000 for a total of
$1,433,165.
Santa Clara County owns a parcel
next to Lawrence Expressway
cUl1'ent1y used by the Department of
Roads and Airports as a materials
storage site. If available, tlùs site
would be a logical extension of the
existing creek trail and could serve
as a neighborhood park.
City, County, SCVWD staff are
working on a schedule of necessary
steps to proceed with project,
including possible (as yet unknown)
fW1ding sources.
b. Rancho Rinconada Park
1 Commence work on a park for the Rancho
Rinconada area
This area was identified during the
General Plan process as an area
deficient in neighborhood parks.
8, 2005
Cupertino Council Goals & Work Program - February
Page 3 of17
~
~
City Council Goals and Work Program 2005-2006
February 4, 2005 -- Items are not in priority order
Comments
Status
Goal
Project
Planning staff is working with potential
developers of the Villa Serra project to provide a
neighborhood park in this area. There is no
activity at this time.
This area was identified during the
General Plan process as an area
deficient in neighborhood parks.
Neighborhood Park in the Homestead area
c.
A park in this area would implement the General
Plan policies that require 3 acres of park per
1,000 residents to serve Menlo Equities, Vallco
Rose Bowl and residential uses on the Toll
Bros/HP site.
VallcolHP Neighborhood Park
d.
Pursue acquisition of the two
parcels at Sterling and Barnhart in
conjunction with development on
the lIP site.
Sterling Barnhart parcels
e.
drawing
IS
The teen center has been popular and
increasing nwnbers of youth.
Summer monthly participation was
185 to 345 youth per week. In
August there were 274 registered
members.
Youth Issues
a. Teen Center
4.
Program not offered in 2004/05 due
to budget cuts.
Tomorrows Leaders Today
b.
Sheriffs Teen Academy
c.
graduates to date.
190 total
2004/05 class in progress
2004/05 class - 22 graduates to date.
Classes scheduled to begin in
February and April with 20
participants in each class.
Kaleidoscope
d.
f::::J
,
~
~
8, 2005
Goals & Work Program - February
Cupertino Council
Page 4 ofl7
City Council Goals and Work Program 2005-2006
Februuy 4, 2005 -- Items are not in priority order
-
Project Goal Status Comments
Respondents to the past two conununity
surveys and at the May 2002 conununity
congress favor an enhanced commercial
district in the Crossroads area, as follows
· 71 % ofthe June 2004 Community Survey
· 75% of the June 2002 Community Survey
respondents
· 81% of May 3, 2002, Community
Congress
The General Plan Task Force presented its
recommendation in March 2004. Task Force
draft is consistent with the Streetscape Plan.
Council can schedule adoption of the plan at any
time.
Phase One of the Town Center plan began
construction in December 2003. Architectural
plans for the residential component have been
approved and building permit plans for buildings
Rl and R2 are completed. Demolition of the
existing office buildings should begin in Spring
2005 and construction of the town homes,
mixed-use building and park should begin in the
SummerlFa1l2005.
City Council authorized the
amendments to the Heart of the City
plan on January 22, 2002.
The Crossroads Streetscape plan
went to the Planning Conunission in
Fall 2002, and was delayed to enable
the General Plan Task Force to
consider height and setback
recommendations.
5. Pursue "Downtown" Opportuuities
a. Implement the Streetscape plan for the
Crossroads block of Stevens Creek Boulevard
from De Anza Boulevard to Stelling Road.
The City Council approved the
master plan in May 2003
Work with the Town Center developer to plan
a mixed used walkable plan
b.
í::-:J
\
ÂJ
Cv
& Work Program - Feblllary 8, 2005
Cupertino Council Goats
Page 5 of17
Program 2005-2006
in priority order
Goals and Work
-- Items are not
City Council
Comments
Status
February 4, 2005
Goal
Project
72% of respondents to the 2004 community
survey supported calming traffic on major
boulevards to enhance walkability
State grant approved for $100,000. Project to
be constructed May-June 2005.
On Sept. 15,2003, the City Council
authorized the Pedlbike Commission
to study Regnart Creek Trail
segments from Blaney Avenue to
Pacifica Avenue.
Commission reported to Council in
Spring '04 and staff will apply in
early 'OS for planning funds from
SCVWD.
Safety - Walkable Community
Ensure that "walkable city" concept is present
in all City development/redevelopment
projects
Street
a.
6.
Mary Ave. Pedestrian Crossing
b.
Next block is March
New mentoring program provides
leadership training and individual support
for new and existing leaders.
19.
leader gathering
·
·
Neighborhood block leader progran1
supports 115 leaders.
Building Community/Unity
Continue to offer opportunities and programs
to promote cultural understanding and address
the needs of our diverse community
a.
7.
Block Leader "How-To" binder is on CD
and is available on the City websÏte.
Materials include: sample fliers, tips to
organize neighborhood meetings, and
communication/facilitation guidebook.
·
Map Guide, the City's GIS program.,
includes block leader coverage areas.
·
Leaders are informed of neighborhood
building activities and improvements
over $50,000.
·
fd
ì~
-..0
8, 2005
February
Goals & Work Program
Cupertino Council
Page 6 ofl7
Program 2005-2006
in priority order
and Work
Items are not
Goals
City Council
Comments
February 4, 2005 -
Temlls instruction is now available in Mandarin,
Spanish, Hindi, Korean, Vietnamese at the
Sports Center.
Status
-
The Selllor Center provides
translation volunteers in several
languages.
Goal
Continue to identify translation needs in our
community
Project
b
c.
City staff is providing translation and
interpretation services for publications and
resident service requests.
Senior Center Newsletter is printed
in English & Mandarin.
Hold public forums in other languages for
major capital improvement projects as needed.
The Senior Newsletter includes Chinese
translation.
Emergency Preparedness
instructions are printed in multiple
languages
Evaluate methods for communicating
(electronically and in writing) to non-English
speaking population regarding crime
prevention, emergency preparedness and civic
activities
d.
Adopted by CEA, non-represented;
and OE3.
Event scheduled for September 24 & I The City will also be organizing other special
25 in conjunction with Chamber of events throughout the summer of 2005
Commerce and Rotary.
pay program
Golden Jubilee celebration
Implement a bi-lingual
e.
f.
The General Plan update will consider policies
encouraging active commercial uses such as
bookstores, coffee shops and restaurants.
Re-tenanting of existing commercial buildings
· Panda Express, T-Mobile & Starbucks
· Flames Restaurant
· Alexander's Steakhouse
· Dynasty
· Lori's Diner
· Rio Adobe
& Work Program - February 8, 2005
Goals
Cupertino COWlcil
City Council has approved the
following projects expanding the
City's retail space by approximately
80,000 square feet:
Panera BreadslPeet's Coffee
Verona (City Center)
Tra Vigne
Marketplace
BJ's Restaurant & Brewery
Library Coffee Shop
Town Center
Menlo Equities
Economic Development
Encourage, retain and support healthy
enviroIUl).ent for retail growth
a.
8.
Page 7 ofl7
bJ
~
City Council Goals and Work Program 2005-2006
February 4, 2005 - Items are not in priority order
Comments
The committee adopted the following goals:
· Enhance communication between local
business and government to promote Econoniic
Development
· Identify target businesses including a
bookstore, theater, big box and medium to high
end restaurants
Status
Reorganized the Economic
Development committee to provide
better business representation and
ensure all goals are met.
· Identify specific contacts
· Prepare contact letter
· Prepare brochure for target businesses
· Incorporate an Economic Development section
on our website .
The new owners are beginning demolition of the
lower level to reinforce the building structure to
accommodate the planned theaters. The City
Council approved a development agreement
amendment on April 27. Cinema plans are
expected to be submitted in the first quarter of
2005.
Vallco was purchased in June 2003
and the new owners constructed
tenant improvements for a 1,300-
seat Dynasty restaurant and are
working on plans for a 16 screen
cinema.
Project Goal
b. V ALLCO Fashion Park Redevelopment
Council approved a mixed use plan
with 140,000 square feet of new The applicant received use permit approval and
retail and 204 residential units at the will be submitting for final site and architectural
Rose Bowl site. approval in the Spring of2005.
Major projects include an economic Borland Software moved a significant Silicon
assessment of potential revenue valley office into the City Center.
generation possibilities.
-
Cupertino Counoil Goals & Work Program - February 8,2005
Add revenue enhancement incentive policy
component of review for new development and
means to supplement revenues for non-sales
tax generating developments.
c.
Page 8 ofl7
u
.
,(»
-
1
City Council Goals and Work Program 2005-2006
February 4, 2005 -- Items are not in priority order
í -
Project Goal Status Comments
Borland Software moved a significant Silicon
valley office into the City Center.
The City should evaluate use of
development agreements to
implement in-lieu fees for non-sales
tax producing uses.
The General Plan Circulation
Element will evaluate transportation
implications of new development.
d. Evaluate transit/transportation implications of
economic development strategy
Staff held General Plan orientation meetings
with PC, P &R, BP AC, Housing Committee, the
business community and held a general
community meeting.
In October 2004, the City Council endorsed the
Task Force draft and associated documents as the
public hearing draft. Community meetings are
scheduled for Nov./Dec. 2004 and public
hearings in the fust half of 2005.
;.. May 3, 2002, Community
Congress focused on the Gcneral
Plan update.
;.. The Administrative Draft of the
General Plan was completed and
distributed for public review in
the beginning of January 2003.
;.. CCIPC study sessions held in
February and March 2003.
;.. Council appointed a 74 member
GP Task Force that met from
June-October 2003
;.. Task Force recommendations
were presented to City Council in
March 2004
;.. The Planning Commission held
two connnunity meetings in
Nov/Dec 2004 and is started
public hearings in Jan 2005
General Plan
a. General Plan Update
9.
8,2005
Cupertino Council Goals & Work Program - February
Page 9 of17
~
,
'0>
Þ
Program 2005-2006
in priority order
Goals and Work
February 4, 2005 - Items are not
City Council
Comments
Status
Goal
Project
is pending
Garden Gate grant for $185,000
approval by Caltrans.
Phase I bid awarded 9/17/04
Work to be completed Jan. 'OS
(Cupertino
10. Public Safety
a. Review traffic safety issues
1. Safe routes to school program
High Schools 11/03)
Phase II project to be bid Jan. 'OS
Spring 2005
Report Summer 2005
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
adopted "Street Smarts" program.
Purchased basic materials for
program. Commission approached
City schools for common efforts on
"Street Smarts,"
Anza
2. Traffic signal McClellan and De
Street Smarts Program
3
Spring 2005
Traffic study underway in February.
Report to Council April-May 2005.
4. Kim Avenue traffic study - Removal of
gate
Complete spring 2005
&
Alves
Install pedestrian crossing at
Stelling
5
80 active Watch Groups
representing 195 residential streets.
Held 14 Neighborhood Watch
meetings. 9 meetings were new
groups to the program and 5 of them
supported existing groups or
revitalized inactive groups.
Continue emphasis on Neighborhood Watch
b,
8, 2005
& Work Program - February
Cupertino Cooucil Goals
Page 100f17
f::)
I
\JJ
l>J
and Work Program 2005-2006
-- Items are not in p¡·iority order
City Council Goals
February 4, 2005
Comments
Status
Project Goal
Process of evaluating the program due to budget
cuts.
The Merchant Watch program has
been established and currently has 6
shopping areas as members.
Establish an eCap Merchant Watch Program
c.
To be considered by Public Safety
Commission in March-April
d. Red Light Education
639 residents trained in CERT.
Increased from 4 to 5 CER T
classes/yr.
Continue emphasis on Emergency Response
(ER) and Preparedness .
1. Continue expanding of the CERT progranl
Aid.
Over 590 residents trained in CPR and First
·
e.
III
Enables community members to participate
emergency planning.
Total of 12 neighborhoods
11
Implemented a Disaster
Council/Citizen Corps Council
aid and
Conducted five first
CPR classes
·
·
trained.
Postponed. Began developing bi-lingual Speaker
Bureau.
teams.
Scheduled for Spring 2004
Organized two new
neighborhood CERT
·
·
2. Hold a Mandarin CERT infOnllation class
to assess interest in a Mandarin CERT class
Increases the CERT and disaster medical
response.
Established Medical Reserve
Corp through Federal grant.
·
Developed a model ER
program with Monta Vista
High School students
·
ER Training
Develop High School
3
Completed.
95% of City staff trained.
12/03
First
Updated Emergency Plan
Mandated SEMS training;
Aid and CPR to staff
·
·
Ensure ER Training for City staff
4.
8, 2005
Goals & Work Program - February
Cupertino Council
Page 11 of17
8
,
(jJ
-4:-
Program 2005-2006
in priority order
and Worl{
February 4, 2005 - Items are not
Goals
City Council
Comments
Provide communication services at community
events and established county-wide mutual aid
plan for amateur radio. .
Status
Conducts on-going EOC drills
~
Goal
Amateur Radio Emergency
Project
Cupertino
Services
5
Total of 189 students trained to date.
Offer Kaleidoscope Program 3
times/year
Project begins early 2003
·
·
·
Offer ER skills to 6th to 12th grade
6
On-going.
Meet monthly with local school
emergency plamlers and
District officials
Develop City Evacuation Plan
7
School Resource Officers developing the
program with the Cupertino Union School
District. December 2004 is the target to complete
the syllabus and start school staff training.
Code Red is an emergency
program for school staff and
students to evacuate or shelter in
place during emergencies.
Ensure ER Training for schools
Develop and conduct Code Red Training
for the school districts in Cupertino.
8
9.
Suspended TLT and Leadership Cupertino due to
budget constraints for FY 2004-05.
Sheriff's Office in the process of evaluating the
programs due to budget cuts.
Ongoing expansion of volunteer
programs with Leadership
Cupertino, TLT, CERT and
Neighborhood Watch. Sheriff's
volunteer program in Cupertino has
begun. Five volunteers work on the
Neighborhood Watch program
exclusively. E-mail system to
Neighborhood Watch participants
was activated and to date we have
1200 e-mail alert subscribers.
10. Expand Volunteer Program
The Santa Clara County Housing Trust Home
Ownership Assistance Program is applicable to
The 2001 Housing Element
increased the BMR requirement
Affordable Housing
,
a. Provide housing opportunities for Cupertino
workers
11
8, 2005
Goals & Work Program - February
Cupertino Council
Page 12 of 17
ÇJ
,
~
City Council Goals and Work Program 2005-2006
February 4, 2005 - Items are not in priority order
Comments
and other public service
Cupertino teachers
workers.
Status
from 10% to 15%, and identified
sites for an additional housing units.
Goal
Project
BMR manual was updated in
November 2002.
criteria
b. Review Below Market Rate Program
City has contracted with Neighborhood Housing
Services of Silicon Valley to implement the
teacher outreach program in December 2003.
Teachers have not been able to qualify for
housing in Cupertino. The Housing Commission
is considering if the area allowed for housing
purchases should be expanded and will make a
recommendation to the City Council.
City Council appropriated $220,000
for a down payment assistance
program for teachers in May 2003
Teacher housing assistance programs
1 Develop teacher housing assistance
program (9/02)
.c.
The Commission will likely recommend
increasing housing fees for non-residential
developments and residential developments that
are too small (6 or fewer units) to require a BMR
unit. The commission will also consider if
commercial should be assessed a housing
mitigation fee.
The Housing Commission is
reviewing a nexus study for housing
mitigation fees and will make a
recommendation to the City Council
in Spring 2005.
Nexus Study for Housing Mitigation Fees
d.
The site can accommodate 3-4 dwelling units.
Following the negotiations. The City will have a
90 day due diligence period to detemline if the
site is developable for affordable housing.
On Feb. 1,2005, the CC authorized
staff to negotiate with Cal Trans to
possibly purchase a V. acre site on
Cleo Avenue. Staff will negotiate
Plice and finance options and
discuss development options with
non-profit housing developers.
Cleo Avenue Affordable Housing
e.
8,2005
Goals & Work Program- February
Cupertino Council
Page 13 of17
u
,¿,
ç-
City Council Goals and Work Program 2005-2006
February 4, 2005 - Items are not in priority order
Comments
I
Status
Lot by lot Creston annexations are
on-going when major remodeling of
a home is proposed.
See discussion under Parks section.
The strategy will include strategies to encourage
annexation of large hillside properties within the
City's urban service area.
On Feb. 1,2005, the CC authorized
the staff to respond to proposed
LAFCO policies and return with a
comprehensive annexation strategy
for the remaining unincorporated
islands.
Project Goal ]
-
12. Annexation
a. Creston
1. Annex individual contiguous parcels when
redevelopment occurs
b. Pursue annexation of the land under the San
Tomas/Saratoga Creek Trail.
c. Develop a comprehensive Annexation Strategy
8,2005
Cupertino Council Goals & Work Program - FebruarY
in 2006.
The DACA lease expires
Talks are underway.
13. Sports Center Building Strategy
a. Work with DACA on a strategy for upgrading
the pool and bath house.
Page l40f17
(d
\
0>
...J
City Council Goals and Work Program 2005-2006
February 4, 2005 -- Items are not in priority order
Comments
Status
Goal
Project
-
In January 2004, CPRD staff engaged with
FUHSD staff to discuss potential joint program
opportunities. These discussions were very
enlightening and proved to be valuable.
Following is a list of programs that the City and
FUHSD became partners on during the Summer
2004. The total package of programs were 100%
cost recovery.
Water Polo Instruction - 50 participants, 10
hours per week, ages 12 to 17
The Teacher Down Payment
Assistance program has been
approved.
want to
Matching
program.
The Public Safety Commission is
working on improving traffic in the
tri-schools neighborhood.
The School Districts do not
pursue a SeniorlTeacher
Partnerships
Pursue partner opportunities with the three
school districts including:
1. Pool
2. Gym
3. Traffic and parking
4. Teacher housing
14. School
a.
Youth Basketball Camps - 275 participants,S
camps, 25 hours per week, ages 7 to 12
The Safe Routes to Schools projects
have proceeded with excellent
cooperation between the City and
Basketball League - 8 high school teams, 120
participants, 8 hours per week, ages 15 to 18
Monta Vista, Cupertino and Garden
Gate.
Open Gym - open to the public, 55 participants,
3 hours per week, ages 15 to adult
When completed, we use the
Cupertino field house as available.
De AnzalCity recycling program -
the City gives De Anza used
computers and De AnZa refurbishes
them.
Added second SRO in FY 2004/05
School Resource Officers
5
in FY 2003/04
Updated contract
Youth Probation Officer
6.
Cupertino Council Goals & Work Program - February 8, 2005
Page 15 of17
~
\
~
and Work Program 2005-2006
Items are not in priority order
City Council Goals
February 4, 2005 -
Comments
Status
Project Goal
Weekly service to be phased in by daily route
beginning with Monday route and continuing
through May until all routes are completed.
Contract with hauler approved by
Council. Implementation March-
April-May.
15. Other
a. Weekly Recycling
One lot sold for $1,200,000. Other
two lots to be sold on market
through a broker. Report and
recommendations to Council in
March for implementation prior to
end of fiscal year.
Community Shrédding / Recycling Day
Sale of Property
b.
·c.
Completed
Completed
Master calendar completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
16. Internal Improvements
Implement Access Cupertino to enhance
customer service response times
Implement e-mail response policy for Mayor
and Councilmembers
NotifY Council of major events/activities
including block parties
Add time component to video streaming
Consolidated CDBG and Human Service
funding processes
Perform a review of the CCS housing
allocation process
Reviewed City fees for planning, building and
engineering to obtain full cost recover of
services.
d.
e.
f.
g.
b.
c.
a.
Completed
Contracted with a new ailimal service provider
to save $70,000 annually and $500,000 one-
h.
é:/
\
Q)J
-0
8, 2005
Goals & Work Program - February
Cupertino Council
Page 160f17
City Council Goals and Work Program 2005-2006
February 4, 2005 -- Items are not in prioritY order
Comments
Cupertino Council Goals & Work Program - February 8, 2005
Status
Completed end of April
Completed
Goal
time shelter contributions
Replaced the community outreach sergeant
with a code enforcement officer saving
$140,000 atU1ually.
Project
1.
Provide searchable Council and Planning
agendas, minutes and packets, and. other public
documents on the Web page
J
Completed
Completed
Improve Commission appointment process
Provide emergency response training
(terrorism)
k.
I
Completed
m. Implement more thorough employee evaluation
forms and train all supervisory and
management staff.
Completed
n. Liaison with donors for commissioned
sculptures for the new Library and Civic
Center Plaza
Completed
Improved A V capability and commwllty
access.
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
West Valley Sheriff's Substation moved to
Cupertino
Valko provides outreach space for Emergency
Services program in the mall .
777-CITY phone access
Live receptionist instead of recorded message
7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday
Greatly increased notification including city-
wide notification of major issues
Page 17 of 17
o.
p.
q.
t.
r.
s.
f::::)
,
-Ç:.
~
LOCAL I PAGE 38
A SHOPPING SPREE
FOR NEEDY CHILDREN
INSIDE I PAGE 28 .
FINANCIAL PLANNING mR GIRLS
. LOS GATOS
· SARATOGA
· SUNNYVALE
· CUPERTINO
· SAN JOSE
ey
est Va
.,., >.
mercurynews.com/neW5
B
Dwv
;UNDAY
AN JQSE MERClMV NEWS
_6,2005
Parents of students at Fremont Union High School
District campuses - Cupertino. Fremont. Home-
stead, Lynbtook and Monta Vista - will have to
prove l1!Sidency. See www. fuhsd.org.
What's needed to establish residency:
Original documents. 3 types:
· Driver's license.
· California 10, or
· Valid passport, consulate-issued ID or voting cre-
dential.
and
· Cut1'1!nt vehicle registratión.
· Cummt year's W-2 form, or
. . State or federal tax return filed within the past 12
months with W-2 forms attached.
olld· ..' .
· Property tax bill with parent's name and address
or rental/lease agreement with parent's name, stu-
dent's name and address.
s
vo
PROVING RESIDENCY
,
'" ¡.c
ßÎ~~~Î;~~:liiíMrgeS$tUClent
FR'~~H~,5 UNld'NTRÂCKS DOWN NON-:RESIDENTS
\",.".¡¡,I.... ..:"."
.,' ByIøi$:br.Igola.. .; throtu<h mid-March. The district screening reflects a general tight-
.:'1l ." Mer'rii.ryNewIJ· I _ ,intends to tell students who can't ening of enrollment critéria in
~ !!11Xieo/i:..i!I hi~~, !'"Í"b~hresidencyto leave almost schools in th~ B~y ~ and
achievmg. Fre¡J¡9ntUruon Higb. nnmediately. throughout CalifOrnIa, particularly
School Di$ict;. and it's not o'><\'", "I understand this will save the among those with higI;1 test scores
exams. _ ."', district a lot of money, but people and other attributes that make
In a cost-cutting move, the SUI"'. ,are upset because it see!llS so sud- them desirable beyund their atten-
nyvale-based distri. 'ct iscrack\!jg....' d. en," said'..Mike.. Lau, a Lynbrook dance boundaries. Monta VISta
down on studenta,enrolled.at.:ipi'-"Highjuniof.. ',_.' "High, for instance"posts some of
five top-ranked. campuses un'¡¡"¡'·' : Fu~:,::.:;~upset is the pros- the higI;1est test Scores in the state.
false pret<¡xts. It's a matter of f4Jr?· pect of' tes being forced to District officials say they sym-
ness to ·legitirnatelyenrol!ed,S1!u..",. interrupt ·their studies and leave pa~ with students who might
dents and to loca.! taxpayers. 'ilis-': behind clOS!1j,i'riends and trusted be displaced, but believe they owe
trict officials say. . , . teachers OIf',top of scrambling to it to district residents to take such
But parents and students,wo.ITY'. ,find a new school to fuùsb. out the . m"""urea. The district promised
ab:out fallout, froµ¡. , the - SCreenI.µg,·~; ,. year. "..'
which begins .!iIondsy and nÎ1\s.' Fremont Union's residency See SCHOOLS; Page 5B
'-----~
~j;\~i>
ty
~
-
JUDITH CAL50N- MERCURY NEWS ARCHIVES
Fremont Union High School District employees WilMandac, left, and John Lozano verify student
residency in the fall. Now the district is requiring students to prove residency or move on,
SCHOOLS I Popular
district purges rolls
Continued from Page IB
to get tough on residency is-
sues when asldng district vot-
ers to pass a parcel tax in N<>-
vember. The $100 per-parcel
tax will help sI:ave off painful
spendIDg cuts. Firumcial pres-
sures have heen such that em-
ployees took a 4.9 percent pay
cut iri September, said Polly
Eave' ' deputy superintendent.
'We are in the business of
helping students, hut we can't
possibly afford to educate ev·
eryone who wants to attend
our-schools:' Bove said It's on-
ly fair, she ,said, to focus re-
soutees on legitimately en-
rolled students.
"We need to be very, very
protective of ¡¡", tax dollars the
community gives _ us," Bave
said.
'Officials in the 9,50ü-student
district szy they can~ estimate
how many students might be
displaced, hut the potential ex·
ists for the number to rise into
the hundreds. A review last
year of caregivi¡r affic!avits -
an arrangement that allows a
student to enroll if he or she
lives full-time with an adult
caregiver who is a district resi-
dent - resulted in 218 of 714
students failing to re-qu¡ilify.
In a letter sent to parents in
January, Superintendent Steve
Rowley said the caregiver affi-
davit review showed "that
some parents presented us
lAW MAY CHANGE
A bill that seeks to amend state law
ori school transfers is making its way
through the legislative pipeline. State
law allowS districts to enroll students
in grades K-12 who aren't district resi-
dents but whose parents are em-
ployed within district boundaries.
58 136, sponsored by state Sen. Jeff
Denham, R-Modesto, would restrict
that allowance to grades K-B.
Soun:e: Mercury Néws
with forged driver's licenses,
tenant leases purchased or
copied from the Intétnet, falsi-
fied utility bills, and addresses
that belong to friends, rela-
tives, or others willing to false-
ly estahlish their home as a
residence of a student not actu;.
ally residIDg there."
The financial pressures fac-
ing Fremont Union are differ-
ent from puhlic school districts
whose fundin&, is hased on dai-
ly attendance. In those dis-
tricts, fundIDg increases when
enrollment rises. Fremont
Union is among the districts in
, areas with Wgh property val·
ues that opt to become 50-
called hasic aid districts. They
rely on a potentially more lu-
crative slice of local property
taxes rather than daily atten-
dance fundIDg from the state.
Revenue does not increase
when elU'ollment goes up. And
Fremont Union's enrollment
has grown faster than demo-
graphies can explain, district of-
ficials say.
Parents who reallze they
can't keep their children in Fre-
mont Union schools ought to
consider their options now rath-
er than wait until March, dis-
, trict officials said.
In the C1JITent residency
screening. students in grades 9,
10 and 11 must prove residency:
before they can register for nexti,
year's classes. The required
docwnentation includes a valid,
driver's license. Utility bills and;
deeds, which suffice in many:
districts for registration, are·
not considered valid for the
screening.
Bove said the district will
take into account that some'
families are legitimate district
residents hut ¡njght lack a re-
quired document - a property
tax bill or lease with their name
on it, for instance - because of
an extended fumj]y living ar-
rangement or other circum·'
stance. In such cases, parents: ,
will have the chance to meet·
with officiais at district offices.
'We don't want to proceed in
a capricious fashion," Bove said.
The time frame for the screen-
ing reflects the district's desire
to determine next year's Staff-!
ing leve1s, she said.
Contad Luis Zaragoza oi
lzaragoza@mercurynews.com or
(408) 920-5803.
J)-1.J-.
,Footbridge
design gets
a thumbs up
fron1 council
Crossil1g at 280 and 85 to be
for bicycles and pedestrians
Lll~e;Ji¡ilO CaLIJlU~)
~) þl,v. c¡¡ r5L-OOS
By HUGH BIGGAR
Drivers passing through
Cupertino on,I-280 may soon
see two soaring white towers
framing Mt. Hamilton. The towers
are a part of a proposed Mary
Avenue bicycle and pedestrian
bridge at the juncture of I-~80 and .
Highway 85. Cupertino's CIty council
approved the latest phase of this pro-
ject-including the bridge's desi&:"
and funding sources'-at 1tS mee!1ng
on Feb. 1.
"The footbridge is very elegant and
inspired us to think of egret~ and "
wmte herons common to thIS area,
said Ralph Qualls, Cupertino's direc-
tor of public works, in recommending
the design for approval by the CIty
council.
The council and local.residents
agreed, voicing their support for the
$9,250,000 project scheduled for .
completion in 2006. The total
includes a $2 million increase over an
earlier budget proposal--due to the
unexpectedly high costs of steel. .
"It's beautiful," said Councilwoman
Dolly Sandoval. "It's one of the few
projects I know of that is ready to
roll in the county."
Sunnyvale resident Kevin Jefferson
agreed, saying. "it's at the top of the
list [in terms of] regional importance.
Sunnyvale's portion of the bridge is
limited to residents living on the east
side of the span. For that reason,
Sunnyvale agreed to pay for some of
the cost.
Cupertino will.also pay no more
than $475,000, according to the terms
approved unanimously by the city
council. The remainder of the fund-
ing will come from state or regional
sources.
The funding provides for the con-
struction of the cable bridge over 1-
280, landscaping and related privacy
. and security measures. "It's essential-
. ly a linear park," said Qualls. The
landscaping win stretch 13 acres and
include oak and cypress trees to help
provide privacy for nearby residents.
q- BJ'1~g9, page 12
Bridge.
Continued from page 1
The bridge will measure 87 feet from
the ground up and will include barriers to
prevent residents from dropping things
into traffic. The 2O-foot width of the span
also allows for an emergency vehicle.
Qualls, who also labeled the bridge
design as "very coo!," stressed the seis-
mic safety of the bridge, given its deep
pilings and concrete foundations.
Such safety measures added to the
I bridge's appeal for Cupertino resident,
Deborah Hill. "It's a great project,~ she
said. "It's elegant and safe enough for
rainy days and earthquakes. I'm
impressed with all the hard work put
into it."
Local residents still have a chance to .
provide their thoughts. Community
meetings are" scheduled through March
of this year. "'There will be time to
address the council further," Qualls said.
The next city councB meeting is sched-
uled for Feb. 15 at 6:45 p.rn in the com-
munity hall, 10350 Torre Ave. For moré
information visit www.cupertino.org.
'])-13
J.·al:)(; ~ U~ ~
Steve Piasecki
From: Rick Kitson
Sent: Tuesday. February 08, 2005 11 :44 AM
To: Department Heads
Subject: Cupertino deal first of $100M bet
. MSNBC.com
Cupertino deal first of $looM bet
By Sharon Simonson
SIUCON VALLEY/SAN JOSE BUSINESS JOURNAL
Updated: 7:00 p.m. ET Feb. 6, 2005
A San Francisco real estate company has acquired a Hewlett-Packard building complex in Cupertino
as part of a larger rejuvenation in the area around the Vallco Fashion Park Shopping Center.
The deal is just the beginning of a $100 million bet on Silicon Valley real estate by a company with
a record of turning vacant property into commercial success stories.
Pacific Resources has agreed to pay about $100 a square foot, or $24.3 million, for three former H-
P buildings on Tantau Avenue in one of the most desirable cities in the region, particularly well-
respected for the quality of its schools. Kevin Wu, the project manager for Pacific, says the
company intends to renovate the properties and to lease them as offices in the next two years.
They've already signed a leasing agreement with Cushman & Wakefield.
Rick Ingwers and Nina Frandson of Cushman also represented H-P in the sale.
In the future, Pacific could redevelop the properties for other uses, though that is not its primary
mission right now.
"The thing that really enticed us into buying it was the price, and we figure the land alone should
be worth $50" a square foot, Mr. Wu says. "We are looking at this as a bargain. Our company is
willing to add value to properties. That's whàt we have done in the past."
The buildings sit on nearly 15 acres.
Over roughly the last decade, Pacific transformed a vacant San Francisco bUilding at Fourth and
Market, redeveloping it into offices, Old Navy and Container stores, and a ZOO-room hotel. Pacific
Place sold for $180 million last year.
The Cupertino deal Is Pacific's first in Silicon Valley. It intends to Invest at least $100 million in
valley commercial real estate in coming years, primarily in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties.
Pacific is an international company with real estate interests in the Pacific Rim, he says.
Pacific is abandoning San Francisco, at least for awhile, because the company's principals believe
prices in San Francisco don't make sense right now, Mr. Wu says.
"We are going to go slowly (in Silicon Valley) because with a new market you need to make sure
you understand it," he says. "We are testing the waters."
2/9/2005
-:J>.4-+
ragt; ¿ 01 ¿
The area around Vallco has become a redevelopment hotbed recently, starting with the mall's
acquisition by a group of Asian investors in spring 2003 for $BO million.
The investors, who bought Valleo out of receivership, plan an international retail theme for its
500,000 square feet of shop space to position the center against the abundance of nearby
mainstream American shopping In the area, including Westfield Shoppingtown Valley Fair, Santana
Rowand Stanford Mall. Macy's, J.C. Penney and Sears also have stores at Valleo.
So far, the mall's redevelopers, Alan Wong, Emily Chen and John Nguyen, have acquired
development rights to build 204 condominiums and 100,000 square feet of retail on a six-acre
surface parking lot for the mall, says Mike Rohde, the mall's general manager. They expect to start
construction in September.
They're also in final negotiations with the department stores regarding construction of a 16-screen,
3,500-seat theater on a new third level'at the mall, he says.
The city has approved the program. A new Dynasty Restaurant with 1,200 seats and a banquet hall
large enough for 500 people is open and an Alexander's Steak House comes in April.
The mall itself will also undergo extensive renovation and the addition of two new parking
structures with 1,300 spaces, he says.
Meanwhile, Menlo Equities has started construction on 107 condominiums across Wolfe Road from
the mall. Those are to go on sale in September, says Jane Vaughan, a Menlo partner. She says she
expects them to sell briskly.
"There is huge demand for Cupertino housing," she says, and the Valleo renovation and expansions
should only enhance the homes' value.
More housing is likely in the vicinity as well. H-P, the city and high-end home developer Toll
Brothers of Pennsylvania are working on a plan for a nearby 24-acre site.
URL: httD:/ /msnbc.msn.comlid/6926779/
Best regards,
Rick Kitson
Public Infonnation Officer
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
408.777.3200 phone
408.777.3366 fax
rickk@cupertino.org
2/9/2005
}) - 1ð